Can anecdotes and history match science in guiding Paleo nutrition?

Abstract  – Yes! Anecdotes and historical lessons can be as valuable as science in nutrition. This is how we managed to cross the first 2.5 million years of our existence as a species.

Several prominent Paleo thinkers came out in their blogs and during the last AHS against the use of “Non-Scientific” statements that abound in the Paleo blogosphere.

This has prompted me to examine the relative productivity of the scientific approach towards finding a better, safer diet.

Since everything is relative I will examine the importance and validity of Science in relation to Anecdotes and History as guides to optimal diet.

Some say that Science is the new religion. In some sense, at least as it concerns non-scientists who are unaware of its limitations, it probably is. Science today is conceived as capable of explaining the inexplicable; a territory that is always in great demand by the public and that was previously dominated by religion.

During the last year I have immersed myself in science. Coming in I was already sceptical about its purported ultimate validity in the area of nutrition having read Gary Taubs’ Good Calories Bad Calories, Michael Eades’ blog and others.  Since, I not only haven’t changed my mind but developed a notion that Science, while helpful sometimes, will never (at least in my lifetime) be able to supply “the final answer” on the subject.

Science work is basically the formation of hypotheses and the execution of experiments that aim to disprove them. A hypothesis that has not been disproved gains relative validity through time.

Most of the people who frequent the Paleo blogosphere know that experiments in nutrition are difficult to perform. The golden scientific standard of randomized, double blind, controlled experiments cannot be implemented here as our taste buds stand in the way. Another big problem is that long term nutritional experiments are notoriously difficult to control. People just drift back to their old habits. The more out of line the diet (high fat for example) the quicker they are likely to drift out of it.

Another big problem in the applicability of scientific experiments to practical knowledge lies in the need for interpretation of the results by the researchers. Names are not standardized and biases abound.

The Nuclear Research Center experiment (link)

Here is a short example to illustrate most of the problems mentioned above:

There is no better place to conduct a long term comparison of diets than the Nuclear Research Center near Dimona in southern Israel. What allowed the nutrition researchers, headed by Iris Shay to perform one of the longest ever studies of this type, was the fact that the 311 employees who were the subject of this experiment for two years:  a.) rarely quit their steady job, b.) eat two meals a day at work, c.) pass medical test at work on a regular basis.

So with the aid of colored labels in the cafeteria three groups were instructed to eat either Low Fat or Mediterranean or Atkins diet for two years. I could have written a post just about the numerous biases and blunders of this, relatively well preformed, experiment but let’s go straight to the points that are relevant to our business.

Here is a table of some results from the experiment. WMV is a measure of carotid plaque thickness:

We should note that all the numbers are averages. The standard deviations are all over the place. First of all it’s quite obvious that all the diets are low-carb more than anything else. Even the Low Fat diet is more “Lower Carb” than “Lower Fat” – So much for names. On the other hand The Atkins dieters only reduced their carb consumption from 40% to 30% of calories on average so it was not really Atkins (on average) – So much for control.

It is quite easy to see that the higher the reduction in carbs the higher reduction of the WMV (a measure of plaque thickness). Don’t look for any attempt to examine the significance of this association in the paper. Apparently you need to be low carb biased to look for it in the first place -So much for interpretation. I really can’t bring myself to tell you what the researchers’ interpretations of the results were. After all they are my countrymen (or women I should say).

Now if you think that reducing your carb intake by so many calories will take care of your plaque you (or your relatives) are going to be disappointed. These numbers are averages of people, some of which were either compulsively adhering to the instructions and others who couldn’t care less. I bet none of the numbers in the table represent any of the 311 subjects – So much for applicability.

Another type of scientific investigation applied in the quest for optimal nutrition is biochemical analysis. Pathways are drawn, biomolecules are composed and decomposed, and enzymes and hormones get into (sane or insane) action all in the name of explaining why one dietary strategy is superior to another. I must admit that most of the language of this type of science is beyond my capability but my experience with computer systems that are far less complicated than our body tells me that the power of this type of analysis is limited. Take for example the antioxidants dogma which is recently being proven to be completely wrong and add to that the “Master Hormone” Leptin that was only discovered 10 years ago and Adiponectins and god knows how many other important substances whose existence, not to speak of their godly complex interactions, is unknown. So biochemistry is not our panache although it may be useful for the generation of hypotheses .

 So science’s degree of relevance to optimum nutrition is not unquestionable and we haven’t even discussed the dire consequences to its validity of its partial abduction by immensely forceful financial interest and politically motivated groups.

“But surely you don’t think that Science is worse than anecdotal evidence” I hear some of you say. Well, I actually do. You see, in my opinion the anecdotal method of collecting and applying knowledge in the drive for optimum nutrition has a proven track record that surpasses science by a mile. The healthy traditional societies that Weston Price investigated in the 30’s are the results of just that type epistemological system. There wasn’t any other. Few of the participants in the systems ever saw real proof, not to speak of “Scientific Proof” to the rules that guided their optimum nutrition. It was all third hand anecdotal.

There is a tremendous opportunity today to reenact the successful anecdotal epistemology in the quest for optimum nutrition. We have actually discovered it and are practicing it right now. It’s called “forums” and “blogs” and “comments” and “tweets” and “statuses” – all the internet discourse tools. It’s much more powerful and relevant than any science can be. Take avoidance of gluten for example. Where is the science? Do you know of any useful comparative randomized controlled experiment looking for characteristics of gluten sensitivity? It’s the anecdotes, thousands of them, personal word of mouth and in forums and blog comments that drive this enormous movement of people away from gluten. Health by the people for the people. No experiment is ever going to be that powerful and relevant. Experiments, by their nature, are built to simulate an environment. Here we are talking real life experiences.

Another place to look for guidance is history. The first aspect is that of safety. If enough people eat something for a long period of time and pass their genes the likelihood that it is unsafe for you to eat is small. Unless of course if you are a scientist in the Harvard School of Public Health, in which case you should avoid red meat.
With enough research you may be able to say a thing or two about optimum macro-nutrients ratios, if there is such thing, but the main strength, I believe, lies in answers regarding safety of foods. Here are three conclusions you can draw from history that Science haven’t yet produced conclusive evidence on:

• No gluten
• Limited consumption of polyunsaturated oils
• Limited consumption of sugars and/or fructose

Assuming that the new strain of dwarf wheat is the culprit in the recent increase in Celiac and gluten sensitivity we are talking about the most powerful recommendations of the Paleo nutrition template based on a history of the last 50-100 years at the most. If you strive for optimums you may need to go back a little further, perhaps 1-2 million years or more. Yes, we have all gone through some genetic change since the agricultural revolution but it’s partial and it’s limited. Evolution is a design module and every design is a compromise. Basic changes like the shift to radically different nutrition come at a price and their complete resolution population wide probably takes much longer than ten thousands year. Therefore genetics is where science really has a potential to be highly relevant for optimum nutrition.

To sum it up and to tone it down I do not claim that science is not important in the quest for optimum health and nutrition but I think I have demonstrated that there is advantage to not limiting the discourse to “Science”.  Let the anecdotes, haphazard statements and crazy hypotheses have a place under the sun. The nonsensical will be written down or worse still, ignored. Let the magical filter of ideas that seems to operate in the Paleo community do its work.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
•