“Drop the question what tomorrow may bring, and count as profit every day that Fate allows you.”


Well, I hate to be a pessimist, but after listening to the two podcasts I heard today, I’d have to say nope, not a chance.  Not anytime soon, anyway.

First up, an NPR Science Friday discussion about the Texas School Board’s attempt to sacrifice real science at the altar of Intelligent Design.  Is there any wonder why an appeal to scientific reason and evolutionary fact as the basis behind the efficacy of the Paleo lifestyle is such a tough sell to the general public?   What about trying to explain why one calorie does not necessary effect the body in the same manner as another calorie of differing macro-nutrient content?  It’s enough to make this native Texan hang his head in shame.

Then we have another dose of the right answer to a different question phenomena, as brought to us courtesy of The People’s Pharmacy.  Dump all the added sugar in our diets?  Right on, I couldn’t agree more.  Followed, unfortunately, by the same old energy balance madness.  This generation of obesity researchers really do need to be put to pasture already.

The diet industry, and hucksters in general, must be smiling ear-to-ear.

Of note: It is not without the realization of utter irony that I’ve listed this post under the categories of “Good Listening”, and “Science”.

In health,



  1. I think a lot of people in the Paleo/low carb community are way to eager to discount energy balance questions.

    It DOES matter (read some of Lyle McDonald’s stuff). It’s one thing to say that calories are not the whole picture (I strongly agree with this) and another to say that they’re irrelevant.

    I’m not pointing any fingers at you in any way, but I think a lot of people in our community are a little too eager to throw energy balance out of the equation completely.

    I highly doubt obesity will be resolved anytime soon though. It certainly COULD be, but that would require people to be proactive and take responsibility for themselves. Sadly, I think that’s pretty unlikely.

    • Chris,
      No doubt one could eat all the “right” things, and still over-ingest in a caloric sense; I just think that it’s highly unlikely in the real-world (due to the natural satiety response). One could always force-feed, though, I suppose, in order to prove a point. I think this is one area where the opposing “purist” camps refuse to cede any ground. I’m more of a realist, in that respect. I’m for what works, what is applicable to the real world in which I live. I love to debate the finer points of the science, just for the point of debate; I don’t allow the debate to trip-up my real-world application, though.

  2. Well said, and I agree completely. From a “real world” perspective, when I first started eating Paleo (ish) I was amazed at how much I could eat without overeating. I have trouble getting enough calories to support my training in.

    Now if you compare this to a 900 calorie bowl of pasta…

  3. You’re right they dismiss they caloric part quickly. But I also think this matters only so much in the real world for losing weight. I believe you could eat a lot more calories of fat and enough protein than you need and not gain weight, especially if you’re never been overweight much.

    I wonder if you could limit the protein and eat unlimited amounts of fat? Still it would need to be force fed like Keith mentioned, because I don’t think you could do it.

    However I will keep stuffing carbs down my throat on the occasional binge when I know I’m full. Luckily that’s extremely rare.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.