No you're still completely missing the point . I wasn't talking about the merits of burning wood or exaggeration or anything. I was merely remarking that your comment of how "the foundation of civilization includes the farming of grain (and domestication of animals)." is in favour of eating bread, just like a lot of people will defend fires with "but we've always been around fires and they are what's helped us progress."
I was hoping that wasn't your point, because it's not so well played then . What the guy did was take absurd defense of a particular type of fire (in home) while ignoring the purpose of fire. Like I said above, human beings needed heat and will always need heat to live the kind of life we do now. That's the actual 'fire' argument.
His cherry picking and outlandish position being an analogy to my bread sentence would've been a nicely landed blow though.
Do you understand that the main reason bread caused this population explosion is because it's cheap/easy to make?
Now that's the same kind of statement I made. Tilling fields with stone implements, planting seeds, harvesting grain, grinding grain, making a recipe with other ingredients, then cooking it doesn't sound cheap or easy to me.
I made an assumption that bread's development was in part due to its not being harmful to people. And that it was even beneficial to people or they would've stopped eating it/never developed it.
I'm sure society would have done decently well if they used sugar cane instead, but it's obvious that wouldn't mean we should eat sugar if we have access to other food sources.
These variables can and are controlled and accounted for in many studies. While there will be noise in any study (and perhaps higher noise in nutritional stuff) the signal will eventually become clearer through repeat studies and well controlled experiments.
I don't know because as I said, people eating certain ways are going to be more likely to do other behaviors that influence overall health. I have not seen (though I'm not exactly scouring the earth for it) a study that reall endeavors to control health affecting behavior outside of diet.
It seems like you're putting this in the too hard basket and burying your head in the sand when I really think this isn't the case. We have the information and the critical thinking skills to assess it somewhat accurately. For close diets (ie. mediterranean vs paleo, etc) it's perhaps too close too call at this point (or too individually dependent) but we can very clearly see that some diets and foods are better than others.
Not at all. There simply isn't compelling evidence to suggest there is one best way to eat for all various forms of moderate diets, levels of activity, and environment. 'Some diets and some foods are better than others' is a pretty large umbrella. Fact is, I'd bet portion control, increased activity, and cutting sugar would make a far bigger health impact on most people than switching to burgers without buns.
I would like to see studies where either a paleo eater did better with worse other behavior and environment than someone who ate a moderate diet with better behavior/environment, or everyone in the study started out from the same long term diet in the same environment and other behaviors and continued in the same environment with the same behaviors.
It's not that I don't believe in Paleo or whatever, it's that I don't see enough to convince me of its rightness above all others.