I love your 2nd paragraph, except the absence of recognition for n=1 self-experimentation.

Living in modernity is much harder for some than others.

Your science and evidence based hierarchy of nutrients that placed potatoes and root tubers well above rice was very very wrong for me, and probably for others.

The case against rice? Stripped of its husk, the way normal people eat it? That it's empty calories, contains no extra nutrients beyond starch.

Well, that's perfect by me. I already get all my micronutrients from meat – beef, fish, shellfish. All I need is some starch to replenish my glycogen stores during strenuous athletic activity.

But due to my fructose intolerance and generally sensitive gut, I kept failing out every time I tried to introduce carbs, because the potatoes and tubers were too tough on me.

It's a case where all the scientific evidence in the world can be stacked up with the wrong hierarchical prioritization to create a very misleading picture.

A real paleo movement needs to incorporate much more robust individual vitality tracking and strict, easy to implement starting all-meat 1 week baselines to allow people to find their max health point and then expand the diet outwards in a way that avoids any intolerances they may be susceptible to.

Otherwise, whether you say "eat fruit" or "fruit is bad" you're not really changing people's lives to the maximum extent possible.

N=1? Guess what, genetics vary, gut bacteria varies, etc. Individual variation necessitates a respect for individual customization.

This talk about the impossibility of doing controlled self-experimentation is nonsense. It would be equally easy to argue that the supposedly hard science we do is hopelessly flawed, not to mention the purely correlational or anthropological science.

I like all the controversy you guys generate arguing with each other about what constitutes the perfect paleo diet. Because the talking points you raise allows me to better interpret my self-experimentation data and design better regimines. When you don't call each other out, I often have to accept your recommendations as given, without knowing the why. Which sucks when you're wrong.

As for the foolishness of customizing your diet based on how you feel, again I disagree.

Obviously self-perception is problematic. Some of these problems can be corrected with better self-metrics practices. Here's my vitality tracking method: http://www.josephdantes.com/blogs/shorts/?p=827 I've since started tracking ingredients on the same day and page as vitality scores, but otherwise I'm still using it unmodified.

It works quite well at showing cause and effect, and I was able to use it to overturn a major paleo falsehood recently… that potatoes/tubers are the "best" carb source. For people suffering from digestive sensitivity, fried white rice sans husk is actually far better. http://www.josephdantes.com/blogs/shorts/?p=899

And self-perception isn't the only tool one should use. One should also read widely and pay attention to the science. Which is exactly what I did in the above example.

Then it comes down to applying one's intelligence to the situation and desired end and body of knowledge, to make one's plan, and test and iterate it.

At some level this debate is devolving into an attempt to replace general intelligence with methodological rules. That will never work. But you should all keep working together to make each other less wrong.

The idiom isn't meant to convey scientific "proof"; it refers to the reason for the existence of the rule in discourse. If there were no exceptions, uttering such a "rule" would be recitation of a truism, and thus, no rule would need be necessary.

Perhaps Wikipedia explains it more eloquently…

"The original meaning of this idiom is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes that a general rule existed."

The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" is not true simply because a lot of people have used it and it has become embedded in our thinking. Something is proven when all of the facts support it, not just some of them or most of them. To use an exception as proof is most illogical.

Also keep in mind that we're only talking about the fringe scenarios in which the science is undecided. Andrew is suggesting that when you don't have good science, you should use the paleo framework to take action to the best of your ability. I am arguing that before using this framework, asking yourself the question of "does my body make this" and if the answer is yes, and you're healthy, you're probably fine. If the answer is no, we fall back on some evolutionary story to make this decision for us. Using the above heuristic, as I've already pointed out, excludes fructose and linoleic acid while including SFAs and glucose.

I guess I am not smart enough to understand what you write. My apologies.

When I read:

"The [paleo] positivist has little-to-no use for logical frameworks. In the grasp of positivism, logic is little more than a cutesy anecdote that may be useful for the generation of hypotheses. In this world of orthodox empiricism, claims cannot be made absent positive verification by way of controlled experimentation and commensurate data."

I thought, having read the post in toto, you might be saying that those who think Cordain and DeVaney are wrong to fear saturated fat are "positivists" and "orthodox empiricists" who "have little to no use for logical frameworks" for whom "logic is little more than a cutesy anecdote" – that those of us so inclined are essentially maintaining that nothing bad can be said about saturated fat without empirical data.

Now I see that you were not referring to me as belonging to such a general class – these positivists who have no use for logic or logical frameworks.

So who are the representatives of the "positivist" zeitgeist of which you speak? I'd like to read them, as now it is not clear to me who they are. Are you saying you were referring to yourself?

Also, as far as the modern meat supply differing a lot from the archaic in available fat, you might see this and some of my other recent posts:
http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/4/7/lea…

You ask some interesting questions here that are worth considering, but I’m inclined to perform some structural maintenance on the conversation before proceeding.

“I’ll see your name-calling and raise you one.”

Time out.

You misstated my position in your previous comment by saying my quote amounted to putting “paleo reasoning… above… modern knowledge”. My entire response was simply an ad hoc clarification of my own thinking. I was speaking generally and in reference to the ideas forwarded in the original post, and didn’t so much as refer to you or raise a single argument against you. I didn’t even use the word “you” other than to agree in the last paragraph.

“Characterizing the rejection of Cordain or DeVaney [sic] as merely a hazardous and reactionary response to Keys is quite a cartoon view of my views…”

Where did I assert that your views can be accurately represented as such? I read a lot of paleo related blogs, comments, and other secondary discussions. Whatever ambiguous cartoonish characterizations I make are distillations of perceived trends and commentary on the zeitgeist as I see it. If something specific sufficiently rankles my sensibilities, I’ll address it directly.

That’s about all I have time for tonight so the salient questions will have to wait a bit.

@Don

What he is referring to is not some scientific principle, just an observation I once made in thread comments

A heuristic.

linoleic acid and essential amino acids and fructose are either essential or not synthesized by the body

These have pretty defined upper limits for consumption. They make us sick if we eat too much.

LCSFA, glucose, glyccogen (starch) these are internal fuel sources and as such, we have the ability to synthesize them. Apart from the obvious issue of crowding out other nutrients, if our metabolism is intact and caloric intake is balanced, etc. they are not poisons even in large amounts. Compared to the essential agents, they are safer to consume in large amounts.

Synthetic capability = fuel source = safe

Think about if for a minute and don't take it too literally. Now isn't that an interesting observation?

Oh, and I agree with your comment about Vit C and greens. Potatoes are pretty good, too.

"Characterizing what I've written here as placing paleo reasoning above good data doesn't accurately represent my thinking."

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Cordain and Devaney wrote books packed with highly speculative paleo reasoning that is unsupported by actual science (whether it has an ironic TM appended to it or not).

Characterizing the rejection of Cordain or DeVaney as merely a hazardous and reactionary response to Keys is quite a cartoon view of my views as well. As if my views were based on nothing else.

"My estimation of nutritional science is that there is a relative dearth of good data that rises above the level of overly reductionist nutritionism."

No argument there. And that goes double for people writing things that no paleoanthropologist would find remotely plausible or even knowable.

"Thus, proclamations of things that are "good" or "healthy" tend to be made at the mere presence of nutrients that are known to be beneficial or necessary without respect to the negative constituents also contained within."

Awkward, but I think I get what you are saying. I don't disagree but I fail to see the relevance to our disagreement here. Unless you think we are not allowed to consider what foods contain, or just trying to stop debate, which IMO is often why the epithet of "nutritionism" is hauled out.

You don't see me advocating extraction of saturated fat for parenteral infusion. I advocate whole foods and eating nothing more processed than butter.

Some foods are better than others, unless you want to stay above the fray and be a nihilist.
I disagree with Devaney and Cordain about which foods are good because I believe the science I've read and the errors in their unsupported "paleo" reasoning make the case.

"I'm not playing the dichotomized modern science vs. paleo logic game that a paleo positivist* would. I'm saying that absent good data on any specific question, the paleo framework is useful, and highly likely to be vindicated if and when Science™ gets around to answering the question anyway. And… I have a suspicion that I'm going to get hungry before Science™ gives me permission to eat some of the things in my fridge."

Even though I don't pack my prose with as much metaphysics as you like to, I'll see your name-calling and raise you one. I see plenty of positivism in your writings here, yet more cynicism in your whole approach. I get that you are trying to be in a "meta" relationship to the rest of us, who are stuck in the muck of normal discourse, and trying to say something useful to those who have to eat something. I do find your posts very clever and entertaining, even if at the expense of effective communication.

As far as "absent good data" are you claiming that Cordain and DeVaney have good data upon which to base their warnings on saturated fat? I assume you think that they do if rejection of their claims is "hazardous".

"I definitely place paleo reasoning "above" science in terms of practical usefulness for the layperson, but that's not the same question as adjudicating between the two when they both have something to say."

That surprises me. Maybe if you could define paleo reasoning in a few sentences or what paleo even means, I might understand a position like that.

"All the while, I fully recognize that our knowledge of all things paleo is always incomplete and often problematic. Like you and Melissa, I'm all for getting the best information possible. Now, I don't happen to view the extant paleo hypotheses and literature as "nonsense" so much as science (in its active process) rather than Science™."

Which extant paleo hypotheses do you view as "science"? I am curious. Do you disagree that some of them are nonsense? Where is the "science" behind eating copious nuts and nut butters and throwing away egg yolks in favor of the whites? Just asking. And if these are scientific hypotheses, then the process can legitimately include people calling ideas that are unsupported "nonsense" – as in "does not make sense".

Science is not special in that way. It is just a type of conversation and can include calling bullshit when necessary.

*I assume "paleo positivist" is an insult.

Characterizing what I've written here as placing paleo reasoning above good data doesn't accurately represent my thinking. My estimation of nutritional science is that there is a relative dearth of good data that rises above the level of overly reductionist nutritionism. Thus, proclamations of things that are "good" or "healthy" tend to be made at the mere presence of nutrients that are known to be beneficial or necessary without respect to the negative constituents also contained within.

I'm not playing the dichotomized modern science vs. paleo logic game that a paleo positivist would. I'm saying that absent good data on any specific question, the paleo framework is useful, and highly likely to be vindicated if and when Science™ gets around to answering the question anyway. And… I have a suspicion that I'm going to get hungry before Science™ gives me permission to eat some of the things in my fridge.

I definitely place paleo reasoning "above" science in terms of practical usefulness for the layperson, but that's not the same question as adjudicating between the two when they both have something to say.

All the while, I fully recognize that our knowledge of all things paleo is always incomplete and often problematic. Like you and Melissa, I'm all for getting the best information possible. Now, I don't happen to view the extant paleo hypotheses and literature as "nonsense" so much as science (in its active process) rather than Science™.