My list of breakout player picks for 2015 is up for Insiders. There’s no chat this week due to travel (I’m leaving Arizona this morning), but I’ve got several other posts up and two more coming this week:
* Javier Baez and Brandon Finnegan
* Taijuan Walker and some Dbacks
* Carlos Rodon, Tyler Danish, and Robbie Ray
* University of Arizona infielders Kevin Newman and Scott Kingery
Marlene Zuk’s Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live
Zuk’s emphasis in the book is more on human evolution than “paleo” idiocy; the latter is more of a hook to get readers into what could have been a dry history of the portions of our genes that determine what foods we can (and thus do) eat. Zuk organizes her narrative around the activity or food that paleo hucksters claim we should eschew, but within each section delves into the evolutionary history and evidence that tell us why, in essence, we eat what we eat and we do what we do. Along the way, she sneaks in some broader attacks on those who believe evolution isn’t true, or misunderstand it (deliberately or otherwise) to draw erroneous conclusions. Foremost among them is that evolution is not goal-directed, and does not have a conclusion or an apex. We are not the end, we are still evolving, and whatever you may believe about the meaning of our existence, we’re not the peak of some lengthy process.
She also explains in a similarly comprehensive fashion that paleo peeps weren’t the good ol’ boys that they’re claimed to have been, and that the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture didn’t therefore rob us of some essential dietary attributes or destroy our metabolisms. She puts the claim that cancer is a modern ailment to the test, and shows that the lack of evidence for cancer in, say, ancient Egyptians, is a case where we can’t conclude that there’s evidence of absence because cancer cells decay quickly and would rarely leave any sign in bones and other hard matter in the corpse. The idea that obesity, cancer, diabetes and other “modern” diseases are entirely the result of a sedentary, agriculture-based diet and lifestyle – and can be prevented or cured via a paleo diet – is just so much bunk. It’s not supported by the historical evidence, and it relies on the evolutionary myth that we were or will ever be perfectly adapted to our environment. Our environment changes, we change in response to it, but there’s no steady state at the end of the line. (Well, maybe after the sun swallows the earth, but that’s beyond the scope of this book.)
Zuk relies heavily on evidence, as any debunking tome should, but her writing is also very clear without oversimplifying, and she does an excellent job of presenting arguments that appeal to our logic or reason without relying on that alone to convince us. She explains why certain genes or blocks of genes might have first spread within human populations, based on certain advantages they conferred – even genes that simultaneously confer some disadvantage. Cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive genetic condition, meaning that you have to receive copies of the defective gene from both of your parents to get the disease; if you get just one copy, you’re a “carrier” but won’t get CF. You will, however, have some degree of immunity to cholera, one of the thousands or perhaps millions of tradeoffs and compromises that constitute our genetic makeup, a point to which Zuk returns frequently to hammer home her argument that there is no “perfect” in evolution, or even a clear positive direction. (Zuk never broaches religion, but it’s evident that she rejects the notion of evolution as a guided process, or as Francis Collins’ concept of evolution as the divine way of “delivering upgrades.”)
Paleofantasy may not be the book to convince your creationist friends that they’re out to lunch, although Zuk does present her fair share of evidence to support the theory of evolution; it is, however, the book to give that paleo friend of yours who won’t shut up about gluten and lactose. Eat what you want, of course, but wouldn’t you rather choose your diet based on facts rather than frauds?
Next up: A reader suggestion – Pope Brock’s Charlatan: America’s Most Dangerous Huckster, the Man Who Pursued Him, and the Age of Flimflam
I thought Zuk’s book was pretty terrible. Page after page of knocking down straw men. She might be proving or disproving something in her book, but it has little to do with the paleo diet.
Straw men? She sourced most of the claims against which she’s arguing.
Hey Keith, haven’t read the book or adopted a paleo diet, but would like to know your thoughts on the keto “diet”, which has some similarities to paleo but is more based on low carb and high fat and allows or encourages a lot of dairy. I know some people using this for weight loss to great effect. Proponents cite science as the driving factor, and (based on what I’ve seen/heard) would mostly agree that all fad diets are bunk. Have you seen anything or done any research on this topic? Asking since I highly value your opinions on both food and science.
You mentioned that the diet can have harmful consequences. My wife eats this way and I was curious what the book mentions to be harmful?
Without the book in front of me, I can’t, sorry. I’m on the move again.
Yes, straw men. Of course she “sourced” the ideas she is supposedly debunking; that doesn’t mean those sources in any way accurately represent the overwhelming majority of research being done into ancestral diets and the relationship with modern nutrition and health.
Great. Let’s see some proof of this. BTW, are you a proponent of the “paleo” diet and/or lifestyle?
What, in your mind, would constitute “proof”?
You have offered nothing. So, for starters, how about, you know, anything? Like an example from the book you’re talking about and why it’s a straw man argument?
You know, “proof,” the same definition everyone else uses.
I agree with Jay. I gave a review and provided examples to back up my praise. So let’s see some concrete examples of Zuk ignoring or contradicting the research? Otherwise this just sounds like the complaints of a paleo fan who didn’t like what he heard.
I “offered” my own opinion of the book, nothing more. If you are invested in a certain side of the debate, I can see that asking for “proof” makes sense, but before I bother responding, I’d prefer to know exactly what Keith thinks this “proof” would look like.
For what it’s worth, I think even if a cursory read of the major names of the ancestral health movement (Mark Sisson, Robb Wolf, Chris Kresser, etc.) would make it pretty obvious that it has little to do with the strawmen set up by Zuk, but again, that’s just my own opinion.
If we just want to trade links to various “experts” on opposite sides of the debate, we can do that, but it rarely leads to an interesting or productive discussion. I guess that’s why I’m curious about what exactly Keith is looking for and what kind of response would constitute “proof” in his mind.
Blech, typo correction — 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence should read “I think even a cursory…”
“Otherwise this just sounds like the complaints of a paleo fan who didn’t like what he heard.”
Not so much that I didn’t like what I heard; it’s that what I read in her book didn’t match any of the paleo/ancestral health research I’ve been reading. Sure, she’s debunking all kinds of arguments left and right, but they aren’t arguments I see anyone making.
Actually, some of the more prominent voices have responded directly and said basically the same thing.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-it-all-just-a-paleofantasy/
“At the outset, I’d like to make very clear that I actually agree with a decent portion of Marlene Zuk’s individual arguments. […]
There are two main problems with the book, as I see it. First, she’s working against a straw man. Many of the arguments she debunks, like “eyeglasses aren’t paleo” or “the paleo diet was carnivorous,” seems to have been dug up from some random Internet commenter or drawn from fringe camps. In other words, they aren’t arguments people like Robb Wolf, Chris Kresser, Paul Jaminet, or me (or our readers) are making. Second, many of her counterarguments or “nuanced approaches” are the very same ones we’ve been exploring at length for years! ”
http://chriskresser.com/thoughts-on-paleofantasy-bpa-toxicity-research-and-book-updates
[This is a transcript, so CTRL+F for “Thoughts on “Paleofantasy”” to find the appropriate section. The section is long and pretty detailed so I won’t quote anything.]
There are tons more of these responses out there, but I think those two are pretty representative. Nobody is saying there was one paleo diet, or that we were perfectly adapted for that one paleo diet, or that we’re still exactly the same as we were then, or that we could replicate that paleo diet perfectly even if we wanted to.
The point is simply that paleo/ancestral heath/whatever is a framework, a template for evaluating, discussing, researching, and testing nutrition and health issues. And what that framework reveals is that there are lots of things common to “modern life” that are detrimental mismatches with our history and evolution, and that adjusting parts of our diet or lifestyle can result in dramatic improvements in our health.
If anything, I’ve found the paleo community to be an extremely open-minded and curious group of writers and researchers. Many times I’ve seen several of the leading voices reverse or adjust their positions when new research comes to light. And I’ve also seen most of the leading voices explicitly state that the “caveman” side of paleo is just marketing, basically — it’s a name, it’s funny, it conveys the general sense of the thing. But they also point out that you don’t even need the evolutionary history in order to arrive at the same conclusions. You could build a diet/nutrition/exercise framework just from modern research and it would look much like the recommendations of Mark Sisson or Chris Kresser. Marlene Zuk acts as if this is an indictment of the paleo diet, but in actuality it was never a central feature. Nobody was claiming that they had made a perfect diet because they had perfectly matched the diet of paleolithic man. This was never the argument, and so debunking it proves nothing.
Eating a ‘paleo’ diet is simply eating a predominant vegetable diet with a modest amount of meat and the occasional fruit. It’s unfortunate that common sense gets packaged and marketed, opening it up to attack. But still, it’s better than the standard american diet where over half the calories come form wheat, corn, soybean, and high-PUFA oils.
No need to deal in absolutes. It’s worth exploring ancestral eating to understand the macro changes we’ve made to our diet in a relatively small (evolutionarily speaking) amount of time. It’s possible we stumbled upon the greatest boon to mankind in the harvesting of cereal grains, and I agree it’s annoying how the paleo crowd is too eager to vilify it entirely, but considering its recent advent, it’s probably not necessary, either.
It’s possible we stumbled upon the greatest boon to mankind in the harvesting of cereal grains,
I think it’s quite clear that we did. It would be difficult to feed the world without it. Stripping those grains of their germ and bran may not be the brightest idea, but the idea that they are somehow inferior to other sources of calories and nutrition, or that we should eschew them because we aren’t evolutionarily adapted to digest them, is junk science. That’s Zuk’s target, more than anything else – the idea that we’ve stopped evolving, or that we’re evolving too slow for it to matter, or that we’re in a steady state with our (dynamic) environment.
“It would be difficult to feed the world without it.”
Isn’t that a different debate? I don’t see any of the paleo writers arguing that grains aren’t cheap, plentiful, and nutritious enough to keep someone relatively healthy and nourished. But that’s a different claim than saying that (given the choice) they are not the most nutrient dense, healthful option for someone who can afford other foods.
Given the obesity epidemic in the United States, I’d argue that the most pressing issue facing THIS society isn’t how to feed the starving masses.
And I really don’t understand the repeated claim that it’s “junk science.” There is tons of fascinating research being done about the gut biome, the gut-brain connection, and all kinds of things that are shaping and informing the recommendations being made by the paleo/ancestral health crowd. There’s also a strong link to many diets aimed at helping autoimmune disorders or those with damaged gut microbiomes — the same people reading, researching, and writing about “paleo” diets are also involved in many other areas like the autoimmune protocol, the specific carbohydrate diet, Whole30, low-fodmaps diet, and other variations that are incorporating the latest research rather than relying on a 50 year old government approved food pyramid.
But sure, it’s junk science.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705319/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC433288/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115436/?tool=pubmed
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6823/5/10
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/129/7/1434S.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6299329?dopt=Abstract
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040276
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21346369
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24369326
And if you scan through those articles and are tempted to respond, “Well, sure, but those are SCIENTISTS, not some internet “paleo guru” hack who just wants to sell you a book,” then it is absolutely clear that you have as little understanding of the paleo diet as Zuk does, because this is exactly the kind of research that the paleo community is reading and sharing and developing new ideas from.
It’s certainly made us more prolific. Sufficient calories will get almost anyone to breeding age; I’m hopeful that food/diet science continues as a means to increase quality of life for the 50+ crowd.
Now who’s attacking strawmen, Mark?
Incidentally, you are wrong on the obesity “epidemic.” About 5 million more kids in the US live in food-insecure households than qualify as obese.
You’ll have to be more clear with your meaning. If you’re referring to my final paragraph, you’ll note that it was a conditional statement. If that wasn’t your response, then the conclusion doesn’t apply to you.
“Incidentally, you are wrong on the obesity “epidemic.” About 5 million more kids in the US live in food-insecure households than qualify as obese.”
Eh, really? Your official position is that insufficient calories is a great health issue in the United States than obesity?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301379
Even worldwide, the risks from obesity are now beginning to catch up (and possibly outstrip) the risks from starvation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9742960/Obesity-killing-three-times-as-many-as-malnutrition.html
Yes, really. Malnutrition is a far bigger crisis. It also disproportionately affects children, while obesity is less a function of inability to acquire the food and more a function of genetic factors and consumer choices.
So, just out of curiosity — is your position that the primary factor leading to malnutrition in American children is the lack of access to cheap grains?
That would be an odd argument to me. I would suspect that malnutrition in the United States would tend to be caused more by an ineffective and inefficient welfare program doing a poor job of protecting the nutritional needs of children in low-income households, than because there aren’t enough cheap grains available.
However, I will readily admit that I’ve done only cursory reading on this subject, so if there’s a persuasive argument to be made that more and cheaper grains would even partially solve the malnutrition problem in the United States, I’d be interested in hearing it.
More straw men. Amazing that your primary criticism of Zuk’s work was that she did nothing but build strawman arguments to knock them down, yet that’s been about 80% of what you’ve sent back (aside from the research paper links, which I will certainly read this week in FL). Good talk, Mark.
I don’t know, Keith. I feel like I’ve been pretty straightforward and direct with my comments. I’ve explained my position. When prompted for sources or verification, I’ve provided them. Even when you made isolated comments without a developed argument, I’ve tried to be fair and describe a *possible* argument that I *think* you might be making, while still giving you the option of simply saying, “Nope, that’s not my argument, this is my argument,” but still I’m no closer to getting an actual response, other than unsupported accusations of strawmen and junk science.
As an aside, I think this issue is EXACTLY why the research being done is so critically important. As nations begin to shift from the lack of food to the excess of food being the primary dietary problem, we need to understand how to use those excess resources to provide healthier, more nutritious foods so that these populations are moving toward a healthier state rather than passing by that happy medium into excessive, unhealthy calories and the obesity-related diseases.
Understanding all these complex mechanisms of the metabolism and how our bodies interact with various kinds of food will be a huge factor in this process, I think. The old food pyramid and the “calories in, calories out” canard aren’t enough.
Who’s using the food pyramid? That’s another strawman you’re knocking down.
Our own government was still using it until 4 years ago. It replaced with a pie chart. Sadly, while certain changes (like reducing the percentage of carbohydrates) were included at the time of the change, it still comes with unhelpful, unhealthy recommendations like drinking skim milk instead of whole milk.
I don’t know a ton on the topic, but how are humans still evolving? Doesn’t modern medicine for the most part stymie natural selection?
Zuk discusses this exact question, and the answer to the question about medicine is an effective “no.”
My god Mark is exhausting….
Apologies for a back-to-back comment but I don’t understand when proof become some vague, theoretical concept, Mark.