You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
3

[–] Camels-n-Miller 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

I can't say to "scientific" evidence, because any study on this topic is flawed, and biased. Here is my reasoning why:

  1. There is now scientific way to know exactly how food was harvested or eaten even 200 years ago. There is no documentation of what cows or other feed animals ate, because it didn't matter. Only in the past 50 years or so have "grass fed beef" or things like that been studied or documented. Additionally the modern processing of things like feed animals evolved faster than anyone ever considering dietary issues.

  2. Beyond the method of raising feed animals, there is the concept of radiation due to nuclear testing on earth. There is documented proof that after the 1940's when atomic bombs were first tested, ALL things living or grown have a residual radiation content. I'm NOT arguing this is good or bad, it is merely a fact.

  3. There is no documentation on the average caloric intake of people across different regions or working class. Daily food intake for a laborer in the early 1900's dose not even equate to a laborer today, let alone all other people across the spectrum of modern society. Calories are a modern construct, and IMHO completely irrelevant to food intake or necessity.

  4. Taking a person of today and feeding them voodoo speculation of what someone 200 or wildly 5000 years ago ate is absurd. We have different body chemistry, different immunities, different body structure, and overall aren't even close to being the same person from those eras. I'm NOT talking about evolution, or even broaching that topic, I'm only stating things have changed overall for the planet.

  5. ANY study done today or in the past 50 years is going to be influenced by food manufacturers, politicians, lobbyist, and other outside factors. There is no such thing as UN-biased science in today's world. If you don't believe that you have a lot of learning and growing up to do.

  6. All modern cultures in the higher levels of population have experienced massive growth, and life expectancy increases over even the past 100 years. This is attributed to many factors, but general overall health has to be based on diet and lifestyle. One of these (lifestyle) is probably the most influential factor. Less and less people are risking their lives to obtain food and shelter. Less and less times are people in developed societies subject to the dying for the lack of general nutrition.

  7. The lack of ANY nutrition is almost 0 in most modern societies. Yes there are hungry and poor in all modern societies, but the effect of heath, and overall longevity is minimal statistically speaking. Eating what society allows you to afford, processed or unprocessed is not IMHO statistically relevant.

So there's my thoughts on the matter. I'm no scholar, or pretend to be. You want to go all paleo diet, good luck. I'll bet my bacon eating, smoking, and alcoholic dad at 75 will out-live you.

Real Butter is LIFE!

0
1

[–] DeliciousOnions 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

A few minor notes:

Regarding (2) there is a huge, huge difference between our ability to detect something, and our ability to be affected by it. The area of radioactive particles is particularly strong in this difference.

For (5) you can find independent researchers, but you'll have to dig to find them and many are fairly blind to their own biases. Still, there do exist small pockets of unbought research (mostly in the form of meta-analysis and data review) that are worth investigating.