“Not to invent yourself is to be false. To follow preordained rules is a profound betrayal of what it means to be human.” – David Starkey

In a recent episode of the Kathleen Show, host Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau interviewed T. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study.

I know what you’re thinking: WTF?? Why would I want to waste time listening to this?  Well, my take on it is that I like to consistently challenge my beliefs; to continually hold what I think to be true in greatest suspicion.

That said, after listening to the good Dr. Campbell, my Paleo beliefs remain rock-solid.  It is interesting, though, to see and hear, first hand, how science, facts and statistics can become so badly twisted.  If you’re expecting a particular outcome before hand, chance are pretty damn good that you’ll bend your ultimate findings to support that notion.

Along that line of thinking, check out Seth Roberts’ recent, relevant, and most excellent posts here and here.

And just a quick thought for Dr. Campbell to ponder: would it make any sense at all, in an evolutionary sense, that a high consumption of animal protein would lead to cancer?  I’m just sayin’…

On a brighter note, Dr. Campbell does acknowledge the abysmal state of the nutritional education young doctors-to-be receive, and he seems to be an advocate of independent, outside-the-box thinking — thinkering, as we epistemocrats like to call it (hat tip to Brent for popularizing — coining? — the word).

Which makes me wonder what Dr. Campbell would have to say about this recent episode of To The Best of Our Knowledge. Art DeVany makes a guest appearance on the show, and of course, the whole “caveman” shtick has to be played up for maximal theatrical effect (Art has got to get tired of that crap).  Still, though, the entire episode (aside from the haha caveman element), is well worth the listen.

From the show notes:
“…We’ll discover how the Ice Age gave birth to the first modern humans. And, the real secret of evolution…cooking. Also, the founder of today’s caveman movement. He grunts in a more modern way…”

Sean Croxton interviews Dr. Robert H. Lustig, on Underground Wellness

We’ve talked about Dr. Lustig before, here, and his Sugar: the Bitter Truth talk.  Sean does a bang-up job with this episode, exploring similar ground.

From the show notes:
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UC San Francisco Children’s Hospital pediatric endocrinologist, joins Sean for a discussion about the dangers of excess fructose consumption.

Great show; informative, with some great questions and answers.  Listen to Dr. Lustigs’s layman’s term discussion of why a calorie is not a calorie, among other excellent explanations.

Wow, 5 years to kick the sugar jonse?  Well, I say the initial stages can be beat back in 2 or 3 weeks, but yeah, to rid the phantom kickin’ around in the attic, 5 years is probably true.

In health,
Keith

5 COMMENTS

  1. Keith,

    You rock my world.

    Your blog is a gift. Because of your inspiring stories and practical insights, I have lost lots of weight, gained muscle, and feel awesome. I am healthier because you exist.

    Thank you.

    Eric

  2. “would it make any sense at all, in an evolutionary sense, that a high consumption of animal protein would lead to cancer?”

    If the higher protein diet meant an increase in muscle mass in the short term (which is likely to be the case) and the cancer didn’t set in until late on in life (which usually it does), then it might be that people in the past just didn’t live long enough for the cancer to surface, so the benefits would greatly outweigh the negatives.

    Personally I don’t know much about this subject (this is the first I’ve heard of the guy and I’ve only heard of paleo in passing), but I thought it’d be worth mentioning that science, and evolution especially, is rarely as simple as “good” and “bad”, rather it’s a question of whether the benifits outweigh the negatives. (excellent example of this is sickle cell anemia, which is caused when a child’s parents both have different mutations which protect them from malaria)

    Personally I’d be curious about seeing the data of his experiment and seeing whether it has been skewed or not, and if so how badly. Seeing as he seems to be getting media attention and his research is supposed to be “revolutionary”, it wouldn’t surprise me if the results had been exaggerated somewhat

    • We need to be sure we differentiate between “average” life expectancy and “potential” life expectancy once the treacherous infant/childhood years have been surpassed. As well, I think there is a good argument to be made that evolution selects for accumulated wisdom, i.e., the survivability of the tribe as a whole is enhanced with an increase in that accumulated wisdom (tribal elders). Elders also serve as child rearers, freeing the more “productive” members of the tribe to hunt and gather. Just another angle to ponder.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

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