max_pooper: I see your being pedantic again.

You really can't argue pedantry when you are the one playing the "calories in/out" card. Imo.

liam76: Your sun and sickle cell examples aren't really relevant (aside from repeating the perfect strawman again) as there is no real "optimum" for those (nor did I argue there is one for food), and it misses the point.

Why wouldn't their be an optimum for those, just like you claim there has evolved an optimum for food?

Your premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years, give or take, and thus X is the best thing for them.

Why does that not hold true for people getting stuck in the hot sun for 2.5 million years, and thus getting all that sun should be good for us. After all, your argument is twofold here:

1. That a difference of a few years life expectancy WILL, over that period of time, change the genetic makeup of the population to select for whatever gave them the few years.

2. That you are positive that a genetic preference for whatever human beings just happened to be doing for those 2.5 million years definitely exists.

So why can't we apply those same assumption to the sun? We should all be pretty much immune to skin cancer after the millions of years of humans baking in it.

The reason you don't apply them to the sun, malaria resistance, and a hundred and one other things we could think up is that you believe that those are somehow clearcut situations where, jeez, its just simply so obvious that there isn't a solution. But with food, oh that's totally different, and the massive complexity of our genetic was guaranteed to spring up mutations perfecting human beings to the paleo diet, by default, with no room for argument nor possibility that humans could still be just as well off adding non-caveman foods to their diet.

liam76: You are correct, but if they were competing amongst each other you can bet that the humans who were better adapted to that constant diet would be doing better than those who weren't.

You contradict yourself. You disagreed that we would have genetically selected for superior telomeres (which affect aging and longevity - and, btw, are certainly affected by individual genetic code) and yet you assert that additional lifespan would indeed, absolutely and without even allowing for the mere POSSIBILITY that it would not, automatically favor the breeding patterns of those with slight preferences towards the available diets over that time period.


liam76: Smackledorfer: Influence? Yes.
Select for perfection as the paleo diet assumes? Absolutely not.

Didn't say that did I?

Pretty much:

liam76: it is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body.

ie: the BEST, or the perfect, dietary option for a human being is that we should eat what we ate thousands of years ago. Now, you can accuse me of twisting your words here, but don't forget you are arguing me merely saying 'It is an illogical assumption that paleo diet is automatically the perfect diet, and that nothing outside of caveman food could be good for us because they didn't eat it, or that everything they did eat has to be good for us'. Since you've been disagreeing with that statement, you are certainly saying that the perfect earthly diet for us humans is indeed paleo, and that diverging from it, either by adding new things or dropping old things, is sub-optimal.


And now, if you'll excuse me, its time to consume some alcohol, and health consequences be damned.
:D

StrangeQ: limboslam: [i486.photobucket.com image 562x465]
It's not good for motorcycles, either.

Those sparks are going the wrong way if they are being caused by the rotation of the wheel...

And what the fark, how many times does it really need to be said? Sensible diet and exercise. That's it. There's no tricks or magic secrets to not being a fat piece of shiat.

Wow. Do you tell the little kids at Disneyland that you don't really "fly" on the Peter Pan ride?

Smackledorfer: Why wouldn't their be an optimum for those, just like you claim there has evolved an optimum for food?

Your premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years, give or take, and thus X is the best thing for them.

Why does that not hold true for people getting stuck in the hot sun for 2.5 million years, and thus getting all that sun should be good for us. After all, your argument is twofold here:

1. That a difference of a few years life expectancy WILL, over that period of time, change the genetic makeup of the population to select for whatever gave them the few years.

2. That you are positive that a genetic preference for whatever human beings just happened to be doing for those 2.5 million years definitely exists.

So why can't we apply those same assumption to the sun? We should all be pretty much immune to skin cancer after the millions of years of humans baking in it.

Wrong.

The premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years and ate Y for 10,000 years, so our bodies are genetically predisposed to work better on X.

Get it?

That is why the rest of your argument (your analogies, and your claim about "perfect" fail).


The reason you don't apply them to the sun, malaria resistance, and a hundred and one other things we could think up is that you believe that those are somehow clearcut situations where, jeez, its just simply so obvious that there isn't a solution. But with food, oh that's totally different, and the massive complexity of our genetic was guaranteed to spring up mutations perfecting human beings to the paleo diet, by default, with no room for argument nor possibility that humans could still be just as well off adding non-caveman foods to their diet.

No as I said above I don't apply them because your initial statement bout what I am saying is wrong.
For an accurate comparison you would need a"new" sun (that you could choose to or not to use), and a new form of malaria (and have to pretend that all humans had been contending with malaria for 2.5 million years).

Smackledorfer: You contradict yourself. You disagreed that we would have genetically selected for superior telomeres (which affect aging and longevity - and, btw, are certainly affected by individual genetic code) and yet you assert that additional lifespan would indeed, absolutely and without even allowing for the mere POSSIBILITY that it would not, automatically favor the breeding patterns of those with slight preferences towards the available diets over that time period.

No. I said all things being equal in a static environment (WRT food) the people who adapted to use that food better would be doing better.

liam76: Smackledorfer: You contradict yourself. You disagreed that we would have genetically selected for superior telomeres (which affect aging and longevity - and, btw, are certainly affected by individual genetic code) and yet you assert that additional lifespan would indeed, absolutely and without even allowing for the mere POSSIBILITY that it would not, automatically favor the breeding patterns of those with slight preferences towards the available diets over that time period.

No. I said all things being equal in a static environment (WRT food) the people who adapted to use that food better would be doing better.

Do you not understand how telomeres work or do you not understand what the phrase "adapt" means?

Why would one aspect of genetic variation that directly influences life expectancy be guaranteed to be selected for over 2.5 million years (food), and another one not (superior telomeres)?

liam76: For an accurate comparison you would need a"new" sun (that you could choose to or not to use),

Actually you wouldn't. Firstly you wouldn't need a second sun because we have different locations on the planet that are essentially alternate suns for all intents and purposes. The european sun exposure is absolutely different than that in the sahara. And yet, despite clear evidence that melanin levels were selected for over millions of years, nobody, african or european, is optimized to our sun.

You also don't need a second sun, because the basis of your argument is "old good new bad" anyways. You've argued that non-paleo foods (ie, the equivalent to a second sun option) should be automatically discounted as inferior to paleo foods. You have further disagreed with me saying not all paleo foods are automatically good. So, if deviation from paleo foods is, by default, a bad thing, then you've already told me that if there were a second sun you wouldn't listen to any science for or against it being better. You would default a second sun as guaranteed to be inferior without looking at it on its merits anyways.


liam76: The premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years and ate Y for 10,000 years, so our bodies are genetically predisposed to work better on X.

Get it?

Afaict you don't understand the basic premise of survival of the fittest, genetic mutations, and evolution as a whole. As a result instead of actually responding to points I make, you simply restate overly simplistic assumptions as unassailable truths. We are not automatically predisposed to eat what was eaten for 2.5 million years than we predisposed to prefer the levels of sunlight we were exposed to over 2.5 million years. Which is precisely why you dismiss the age argument so readily.

Smackledorfer: Why does that not hold true for people getting stuck in the hot sun for 2.5 million years, and thus getting all that sun should be good for us. After all, your argument is twofold here:

Dude, have you ever heard of Vitamin D? Have you ever heard of Seasonal Affective Disorder? Sunlight is is not only good for you, but it's also necessary. In fact, the entire reason why people develop lighter skin as they leave the equator is because lighter skin is more sensitive to sunlight. The reason people start developing darker skin when they tan is to reduce the sensitivity when they return to sunnier regions, or during different times in the year.

The only time sunlight is harmful is when you tan. That's when you go from having pretty much no sun for months and months so your body, and then you decide to spend a full day out in the sun when your body has no resistance. Of course, that type of situation wasn't really an issue for our ancestors.

So yay evolution.

1. That a difference of a few years life expectancy WILL, over that period of time, change the genetic makeup of the population to select for whatever gave them the few years.

Based on what?

Seriously, even if evolutionary forces are at work in such a short period of time, it's not going to rewrite the entire human genome (which is incredibly complex.). Our metabolism is incredibly complex.

2. That you are positive that a genetic preference for whatever human beings just happened to be doing for those 2.5 million years definitely exists.

Pandas have been eating bamboo for 3-4 million years now (there was a meat shortage, and pandas with the genes for liking meat all died off), yet there digestive systems still haven't adapted to it. They spend every waking our eating, and they still don't have the energy to reproduce. Even now, their digestive systems are structured for eating meat, but they simply don't like the taste of it, and they're not going to go out of their way to hunt for it.

Evolution doesn't work the way you think it does. If Pandas couldn't find enough time to adapt after 4 million years, then why do you think that humans can adapt in 10,000 years? In fact, if you look into modern American diets with grain based oils and cheap genetically altered industrial wheat, you're only looking at the past 100 years. Not enough time for evolutionary forces. And keep in mind that eating bamboo is something that prevents pandas from having the energy to reproduce altogether. Where as the health problems from eating grains does doesn't do that.

schrodinger: The only time sunlight is harmful is when you tan burn.

Fixed that for me.

Smackledorfer: Afaict you don't understand the basic premise of survival of the fittest, genetic mutations, and evolution as a whole. As a result instead of actually responding to points I make, you simply restate overly simplistic assumptions as unassailable truths. We are not automatically predisposed to eat what was eaten for 2.5 million years than we predisposed to prefer the levels of sunlight we were exposed to over 2.5 million years. Which is precisely why you dismiss the age argument so readily.

The problem with your analogy is that you assume that the mutation for changing human metabolism is just as straightforward as the mutation for changing skin color.

And in the case of skin color, it's not even necessarily a mutation. It could just be the result of different combinations of genes appearing more often due to natural selection.

So we're talking about the "paleolithic diet" now? The one that says we should eat the same things the cavemen did? Which cavemen? The European ones? The Asian ones? The African ones? Also, a lot of things they ate are gone forever, and a lot of new things have appeared. Plus there's the fact that many things suggested by the paleo diet weren't available to humans at all or were very rare. I've also seen so many paleo recipes that call for minute preparation, things like olive oil and spices. Cavemen didn't waste time minutely preparing, and they certainly didn't make olive oil.

Know what else cavemen did? Walk everywhere, a lot. They were far more active than we are, which is the main problem with modern man. You can eat whatever you want and however much, just get off your duff and work your body.

Schrodinger, I think you might need to reread my post there and differentiate between what I'm saying and what he is saying.

Points labeled 1. and 2. with the numerical bullets are his argument, not mine (or at least what little Liam has bothered to state beyond overly simplistic "just because" style responses).

schrodinger: schrodinger: The only time sunlight is harmful is when you tan burn.

Fixed that for me.

Actually I believe tanning is harmful too. It seems to be the consensus among skin doctors at this point.



Your panda example is exactly my point: you cannot assume that merely because some species ate something for x million years that said something is optimal for their health.

All I'm saying is: 'It is an illogical assumption that paleo diet is automatically the perfect diet, and that nothing outside of caveman food could be good for us because they didn't eat it, or that everything they did eat has to be good for us'.

This seems to upset the paleo folks, who are both insisting that A. they aren't really saying that, and B. its totally perfectly logical to conclude that, because hey, 2.5 million years can't be wrong.

Smackledorfer: Actually I believe tanning is harmful too. It seems to be the consensus among skin doctors at this point.

Depends on the sort of tan. If this is a gradual tanning, the sort that would have happened for someone raised in ancient Rome who spent a lot of time working in the fields, then I don't see the harm. If it's an office worker who spends 15 minutes on a tanning bed, or even 1 day on the beach wearing sun screen, then that's a bit different.

Your panda example is exactly my point: you cannot assume that merely because some species ate something for x million years that said something is optimal for their health.

The thing is, the basis for our digestive system (as with Pandas) is a lot older than 2.5 million years. The only thing that separates humans from other species in terms of diet is the invention of fire, which makes calories more accessible which frees up energy for larger brains. It also allows humans to eat tubers and root vegetables, which is why Paleo generally allows for those things.

The main thing about Paleo is that it's less about what people should be eating, and more about what they shouldn't be eating. And the foods that people shouldn't be eating are foods that are only recently developed and shown to have harmful side effects. Like modern wheat.

schrodinger: If this is a gradual tanning, the sort that would have happened for someone raised in ancient Rome who spent a lot of time working in the fields, then I don't see the harm.

Look, I don't have a horse in this race. I could give two shiats about skin cancer down the road: its one of the least dangerous cancers, and there is a possibility that the vitamin D get, or something else from the sunlight, may help stave off worse cancers. Who really knows. But it is still a deadly cancer nonetheless.

But the actual skin doctors are still saying any tanning is bad, and we are better off seeking other sources for vitamin D, as far as I've read anyways. I haven't gone out of my way to really research it. I don't tan, but I don't run from the sun anyways. I burn quite a bit before my farmers tan firmly takes hold each year, and I revert right back to a vampire throughout the winter.

I only brought the sun up because, if something shaving a few years off of the end of one's life were strongly represented in genetic selection, I and others wouldn't be the pasty white bastards we are today: we'd have been edged out by the more fit people with more melanin. But we haven't, which suggests that even though I may be more likely to die of skin cancer, that drawback is either A. balanced by some other benefit of white-ass skin or genetically linked to white skin, or what I see as the more likely B. stuff that affects your longevity decades past your reproductive prime are unlikely to be affected by survival of the fittest and thus selected for/against. And, just like my malaria example and what I'm sure are hundreds of others, an appropriate mutation has to occur for any genetic selection to taking place anyways.

You can't just stick a species into a mediocre environment be sure that adaptation will occur. Extinction could occur, adaptation could occur, or slogging along and doing a poor job of it could occur, or anything in between those three. Humans obviously didn't become extinct on the paleo diet, but ya know, we've done pretty good on the zomg poisonous wheat diet too. We are a pretty hardy omnivore who can eat damn near anything. We've got gut bacteria that adjust to what we eat (within 24 hours of a dietary change we can see major changes in bacterial percentages), and we have a system strong enough that we can eat some pretty crappy diets and easily make it to and beyond reproductive age. And that's all I'm really trying to say here: that you can't point to evolution as some mysterious force that guarantees X is good or bad, because we as a species have been shown to be more than capable of using other genetic advantages to deal with/work around environmental pressures - as you mentioned: fire.

So why should a caveman's inability to figure beans out stop me from eating them? Answer: there is no reason, as we've figured out a way to eat them. And dismissing a potentially healthy dietary option on the grounds that cavemen didn't eat it is just silly. Its not science. Its not logical. Its just faith-based nonsense pushed by someone who wanted to make some cash by selling a catch popular diet.

Don't like beans? How about black tea or coffee - its good for you, and cavemen didn't drink it (well I assume, but I could be wrong).

Smackledorfer: Why would one aspect of genetic variation that directly influences life expectancy be guaranteed to be selected for over 2.5 million years (food), and another one not (superior telomeres)?

Because when it comes to food if you are more suited to your diet then somebody you are competeing against, (then all other things being equal) you are going to be stronger and more healthy.

Depending on the society just living a few extra years may not really help (and if we are talking abotu tribes that take care of you) and may actually hurt.

Smackledorfer: Actually you wouldn't. Firstly you wouldn't need a second sun because we have different locations on the planet that are essentially alternate suns for all intents and purposes. The european sun exposure is absolutely different than that in the sahara. And yet, despite clear evidence that melanin levels were selected for over millions of years, nobody, african or european, is optimized to our sun.

Because our sun (over the ranges where people live) isn't nearly as constant as the types of food people ate for millions of years.

And yes you would need a "new" sun. The effect of sun is different on different parts of the world, as is they types of food peopel eat, but it all (sun and food) falls in a certain range. Cow milk, grain, beans, etc are all outside that range.

Smackledorfer: Afaict you don't understand the basic premise of survival of the fittest, genetic mutations, and evolution as a whole. As a result instead of actually responding to points I make, you simply restate overly simplistic assumptions as unassailable truths. We are not automatically predisposed to eat what was eaten for 2.5 million years than we predisposed to prefer the levels of sunlight we were exposed to over 2.5 million years. Which is precisely why you dismiss the age argument so readily

Afaict you like to assign fake points of view to me, and not respond to any points that you don't like.

Smackledorfer: You also don't need a second sun, because the basis of your argument is "old good new bad" anyways. You've argued that non-paleo foods (ie, the equivalent to a second sun option) should be automatically discounted as inferior to paleo foods. You have further disagreed with me saying not all paleo foods are automatically good. So, if deviation from paleo foods is, by default, a bad thing, then you've already told me that if there were a second sun you wouldn't listen to any science for or against it being better. You would default a second sun as guaranteed to be inferior without looking at it on its merits anyways.

That is complete BS. l started down the science behind it in our first exchange when I talked about Lectins, and you ignored it. You have also ignored What Magorn has said on it.

And if we are going off "logic" alone then yes Paleo is leaps and bounds better than any other diet given the facts exchanged in out conversations.

Fortunately as Magorn has pointed out there is also a lot of science behind it that you didn't even bother to respond to (I didn't bother with that route after you ignored my initial lectin comment, seems you weren't interested):

Remember this exchange? I never said there is no way through modern farming or science that we can't come up with a better food.

incendi: All hail the almighty profit margindesire to feed the growing population without a 1 for 1 increase in cost!

Benjimin_Dover: incendi: All hail the almighty profit margindesire to feed the growing population without a 1 for 1 increase in cost!

If they're fat and malnutritioned then you haven't fed anyone.

liam76: Smackledorfer: Why would one aspect of genetic variation that directly influences life expectancy be guaranteed to be selected for over 2.5 million years (food), and another one not (superior telomeres)?

Because when it comes to food if you are more suited to your diet then somebody you are competeing against, (then all other things being equal) you are going to be stronger and more healthy.

Depending on the society just living a few extra years may not really help (and if we are talking abotu tribes that take care of you) and may actually hurt.

There is no difference in strength and health through the prime mating years between an active person eating paleo and an active person eating a diet with plenty of refined carbs, dairy, beans, etc. Sure, in extreme circumstances there is a difference (and all sugar diet might not compete so well) but for any half-way decent diet our omnivore bodies can easily handle the diversity. So no, the only major difference between the non-paleo diets and the paleo is going to be the end of life difference.


liam76: I never said there is no way through modern farming or science that we can't come up with a better food

liam76: it [paleo diet] is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body.


And you are now moving the goalposts to where you agree with the things I've been saying this whole time. Or you don't understand how superlatives work. If that's the case go take an english lesson while you are reading up on how evolution actually works.


liam76: You have also ignored What Magorn has said on it

I didn't ignore anything magorn said. I don't have a problem with a disagreement or a debate. Some mild goal-post moving as you've done can be chalked up to poor wording, but I have no time for dishonesty. At no point in this thread have I claimed the foods on the paleo diet are bad for you. There has been no need for me to disagree with magorn's comments regarding insulin. I assume this must be the post you are upset at me for not responding to?


Magorn: Precisely. The missing oiece in thsi equation is that most people fail to realize that most of human existance was a race to collect sufficent calories and use them eifficently rather than a struggle to avoid overeating. Therefore it is natural and logical to assume that we evolved a mechanism for storing excess calories as well as utilizing them . Obviously body fat is the way we store excess food. And when do we most need to store excess food? When food is about to become scarce, as it does in winter time. However body fat ,as we all know can slow you down and make you a less sucessful hunter. So evolutionarily it most beneficial for survival to pack on pounds just before winter and hopefully have them gone by early spring. (the extra insulation the fat gives you is another surivival bonus).

Now since carbs, before the advent of agriculture, were most available in late summer and throughout the fall, does it not make sense that the eating of carbohydrates became the body's "winter is coming, time to store food" signal?
Thus can it be any kind of suprise that the presence of Insulin, the chemical the body uses to process carbs, also became the hormonal trigger for things like the creation of body fat?

The only part of this that has anything to do with our discussion regarding evolutionary pressures and your lack of ability to understand them is that he through a "precisely" in there after you said the monumentally unsupported statement:


liam76: Unless you don't believe in evolution this isn't that complicated.

out there.

Because evidently, your lack of understanding of the subject implies anyone disagreeing with you lacks some sort of faith.

Smackledorfer: There is no difference in strength and health through the prime mating years between an active person eating paleo and an active person eating a diet with plenty of refined carbs, dairy, beans, etc. Sure, in extreme circumstances there is a difference (and all sugar diet might not compete so well) but for any half-way decent diet our omnivore bodies can easily handle the diversity. So no, the only major difference between the non-paleo diets and the paleo is going to be the end of life difference

So you think there is no difference between a "half-way decent diet" and a great diet on strength and health through the prime mating years?

Smackledorfer: liam76: I never said there is no way through modern farming or science that we can't come up with a better food

liam76: it [paleo diet] is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body.


And you are now moving the goalposts to where you agree with the things I've been saying this whole time.

There is no moving of goal posts.

If I say car x is the "most" fast that isn't denying that someday modern science can't come up with a faster car.

Right now saying Paleo is the most healthy, doesn't mean modern farming or science can't come up with something more healthy.

Save your lectures on the English language for yourself.

Smackledorfer: liam76: You have also ignored What Magorn has said on it

I didn't ignore anything magorn said. I don't have a problem with a disagreement or a debate. Some mild goal-post moving as you've done can be chalked up to poor wording, but I have no time for dishonesty. At no point in this thread have I claimed the foods on the paleo diet are bad for you. There has been no need for me to disagree with magorn's comments regarding insulin. I assume this must be the post you are upset at me for not responding to?

No you ignored what I said. On my Boobies I talked about lectins, and you ingored that and clamped on the caveman part.

If you have no time for dishonesty then stop trying to portray my support for paleo strictly on "caveman did it".

I never said you claimed it was unhealthy either, so please save your lectures on honesty for yourself.

Until you can get a better grasp of the English language, and stop with the dishonest replies (pretended I said the diet was perfect, pretended I only talked about 2.5 million years, pretended scientific studies of food didn't come into play, accused me of saying you thought paleo was unhealthy, etc) there is no point to go on.

My diet am good!

liam76: Until you can get a better grasp of the English language, and stop with the dishonest replies (pretended I said the diet was perfect, pretended I only talked about 2.5 million years, pretended scientific studies of food didn't come into play, accused me of saying you thought paleo was unhealthy, etc) there is no point to go on.

projection at its finest.

Smackledorfer: liam76: Until you can get a better grasp of the English language, and stop with the dishonest replies (pretended I said the diet was perfect, pretended I only talked about 2.5 million years, pretended scientific studies of food didn't come into play, accused me of saying you thought paleo was unhealthy, etc) there is no point to go on.

projection at its finest.

Which of those didn't you do?

liam76: Smackledorfer: liam76: Until you can get a better grasp of the English language, and stop with the dishonest replies (pretended I said the diet was perfect, pretended I only talked about 2.5 million years, pretended scientific studies of food didn't come into play, accused me of saying you thought paleo was unhealthy, etc) there is no point to go on.

projection at its finest.

Which of those didn't you do?

You did say the diet was the best diet. I've repeatedly quoted exactly where you said it.
I never said you ONLY talked about 2.5 million years, I merely debated the fact that you continually repeated 'people ate X for 2.5 million years (5 or 6 posts in a row all you did was repeat that), therefore X is optimal'. My argument isn't whether diet X is good, bad, or optimal, it is whether you can assume it is good because of the 2.5 million years. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if you weren't moving goalposts around and denying what you say.

Finally, I didn't say that you said that I said paleo was unhealthy. I pointed out that I did not say it was unhealthy as my explanation of why I didn't respond to Magorn's multiple posts regarding insulin, which you accused me of ducking. I had no reason to duck them: they had nothing to do with my problem with the paleo dieters' ridiculous logical jumps and inability to grasp evolution.

As I said earlier, if someone told me "diet X is good because superman eats it and superman can shoot lasers" I would take issue with that. Someone could write a 45 page thesis on superman's ability to shoot lasers or diet X's health benefits, and neither would have shiat all to do with me pointing out that there is no reason to assume that the one has anything to do with the other.

If you hadn't said stupid shiat like "it [paleo diet] is based on us doing to day what we did thousands of years ago as that is what is most healthy for our body." then I wouldn't have had to reply with dozens of posts arguing that you cannot assume that what we did thousands of years ago is most healthy for our body. Over the last day you've moved your goalposts so far that they now agree with my initial argument, and you're "evolution" side of the argument has been all over the road.

Oh boy.

Smackledorfer: liam76: Smackledorfer: liam76: Until you can get a better grasp of the English language, and stop with the dishonest replies (pretended I said the diet was perfect, pretended I only talked about 2.5 million years, pretended scientific studies of food didn't come into play, accused me of saying you thought paleo was unhealthy, etc) there is no point to go on.

projection at its finest.

Which of those didn't you do?

You did say the diet was the best diet. I've repeatedly quoted exactly where you said it.

I said it was the "best", you claimed I said it was "perfect".

If I say car x is the "most" fast that isn't denying that someday modern science can't come up with a faster car.

Right now saying Paleo is the most healthy, doesn't mean modern farming or science can't come up with something more healthy.

There is the explanation again of how they aren't the same.


Smackledorfer: I never said you ONLY talked about 2.5 million years, I merely debated the fact that you continually repeated 'people ate X for 2.5 million years (5 or 6 posts in a row all you did was repeat that), therefore X is optimal'.

Dishonest, again. We have been over this. You summed up my argument as-
Your premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years, give or take, and thus X is the best thing for them.:

When it was actually this.

The premise is that people ate X for 2.5 million years and ate Y for 10,000 years, so our bodies are genetically predisposed to work better on X.:

And you keep doing it.


Smackledorfer: Finally, I didn't say that you said that I said paleo was unhealthy.

Fair enough that was my mistake.



Smackledorfer: Over the last day you've moved your goalposts so far that they now agree with my initial argument, and you're "evolution" side of the argument has been all over the road

My goal posts never moved. I don't know if you are obtuse or stupid but I am not going to break out the car analogy again.

As far as my evolution theory if you can't grasp the difference between the sun and food, I can't help you.