No, please do.
I won't get into it much because it's not that relevant, but I'll pull a couple of sentences just to illustrate.
"There is no amount of wood smoke that is good to breathe."
- I don't know of anyone currently arguing that smoke inhalation is not bad. Not to mention liking the smell. Most people I know hate getting that smell embedded in their hair, clothes, and skin. But, since the inhaling smoke is easily argued against he ignores the other reasons people may light up a fire. He does so because fire is heat, and one can't argue that people don't need heat.
"Human beings have warmed themselves around fires for tens of thousands of years, and this practice was instrumental in our survival as a species. Without fire there would be no material culture. Nothing is more natural to us than burning wood to stay warm. (emphasis mine)
- Here we have a list of things he can't argue with, which is why he acknowledges them as true. But then he inserts this sentence about how 'natural' it is for us to be burning wood, which he does because he can then start a hyperbolic mockery on the word 'natural' and slide right by how essential fire (heat) is to our survival.
He just created imaginary foils to argue against, and those foils are absurd.
In a broad view, his blog supports my position. Replace wood burning fire with heat, since that is why we make fire. He acknowledges that though there are alternative sources, we still generate and require heat (mostly from burning coal fires away from our homes). And that when living as paleo man requiring a wood burning fire, we sucked worse than we do now.
I mean my point was you were saying that Bread increases population as it's a cheap/easy source of energy and that increased population/not having to starve, hunt + forage all the time lead to increased life expectancy through various means (that could have nothing directly to do with bread) and state that these points will make it harder for science to convince you with evidence that bread is not good for you when these two facts have absolutely nothing to do with how healthy bread is. I'm not saying that bread is poison or not poison or anything btw, just that it seems some points you're heavily leaning on should hold no influence either way.
If you posted it to show how I am like him, then that was pretty well played. Because my sentence did a similar thing to what his blog post did.
I exaggerated, but the foundation of civilization includes the farming of grain (and domestication of animals). From that foundation sprung an increase in life expectancy, and technological advance. It's not direct causation (eat bread, live longer), but it's pretty hard to ignore all that we have based on a foundation of settling and farming. There are a lot of factors to how we got where we are today as a species so certainly my claim that bread was what did it all is ridiculous, but it (more accurately grains) is in there somewhere.
Complexity is why it's virtually impossible to prove one diet is definitively better than the other. Our lives are based on more than just our diet. Take two guys, identical build, weight, body fat, etc. One eat lots of protein, a reasonable amount of fat, and low carbs and the other ate the same amount of protein, and swapped the carbs and fat. Neither guy exercises. They both buy 50lbs of groceries a week to feed large families. The paleo guy uses the modern technologies available to him. He drives to the grocery store 10miles away. He works at a computer 10hrs a day. The carb guy walks 10 miles to the grocery store and carries home the 50lbs of groceries. He works construction. Which guy is going to be healthier?
Now, you'll probably say 'hold on, that's not fair. The construction guy does end up exercising both in his job and on his grocery trip. You have to eliminate variables and make them both drive cars and work in front of a computer.'
To which I reply: What you mean then is that their health is not entirely dependent on what they eat. Furthermore, in practice, people do have different activity levels in their jobs and their taking advantage of technologies available. Oh and BTW, I meant the carb guy's a coal miner not construction worker so now he's exposed to a more dangerous environment that affects how healthy he he is. Studies are difficult because people are likely to live different lifestyles and have different personalities that lend them to being better or worse for a study. For example, if you had a study with a person who eats fast food and a person who eats paleo, it is not outlandish to surmise the fast food guy is also lazy and the paleo guy is also working out.
All of which points to the fact that one's food choices may be much broader than there being a singular correct way to eat. We are omnivores, and being able to consume a variety of foods would seem to indicate that there are many combinations that can accomplish success in diet. All we need to do is live the optimal way for our chosen diet.