No announcement yet.

Very good talk from Mike Eades [video]

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Very good talk from Mike Eades [video]

    This is a talk that he's given before, and I think I posted a link to an earlier version here myself before. But it's surely worth another outing - particularly as not everyone who might be interested in it will have heard it before.

    What it amounts to is a "defence" of Dr. Eades' own version of "paleo" (rather different from Professor Cordain's inasmuch as it's shamelessly low carb and high fat, includes salt, and isn't afraid of cheese). I'm not sure I quite like the term "defence" since I think we should think less in terms of stridently held opinions and more in terms of seeking for the truth wherever it lies, and I'm sure Dr. Eades does too, but I can't think of a better term offhand.

    (I was, in a similar vein, interested to find someone here posting that he was asserting an "opposing [sic] viewpoint" to something I'd said. Not a "different", an "opposing". The assumption, I suppose, is that we have opinions and naturally would wish to maintain them in order to assert ourselves. But as for me I don't care who has said something so long as it's interesting and significant, and if someone can show me where I'm wrong about something I'm grateful to him. All that I think important is that any "viewpoint" someone advances should account for all the different relevant observations that have been made.)

    But I digress. Three forms of evidence. He points to (1) the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis", (2) Evidence from Static Isotope Analysis, and (3) observations from palaeopathology.

    It's an interesting approach. Notice that defenders of the status quo in dietetics tend to claim that their recommendations are "evidence-based" or "follow the science" - or some such nonsense. What this amounts to in practice is an act of prestidigitation using epidemiological studies (and often dodgy ones at that). But any conclusions that are rashly drawn from such cannot be valid if they can't be reconciled with what we learn from other forms of evidence - forms of evidence that the "establishment" is mostly not even aware of. This is where Dr. Eades' investigations in the pathology material come in. (I suppose what he's found, which may not hold up in every detail but which is certainly suggestive and important, is rather in line with what Dr. Joseph's Kraft's work on hyperinsulanemia suggests, too.)

    This version of the talk comes from Low Carb Down Under. It's very well done, and whoever put the video together took care to let us see Dr. Eades' AV material as well.

    A further interesting point. Here Dr. Eades also addresses Dr. Ron Rosedale's arguments for rejecting the Paleo approach. The arguments involved on both sides seem very "high level" to me - I mean by that at a very theoretical level remote from the phenomena and having an uncertain relation to them. I think it would be difficult to decide which man's thinking was right here. (I doubt it could be definitively settled.)

    But interesting to notice that Dr. Eades thinks of himself as taking the Paleo approach rather than an approach that could be described as getting "beyond the Paleo Diet" to use Nora Gedgaudas' phrase. (However, as I said, Dr. Eades's understanding of a Palaeolithic Diet is in some respects rather unlike Cordain's.)

    In practice I suppose this would mean, among other things, that Dr. Eades would not think it important to minimise your protein intake as much as Dr. Rosedale does, unless perhaps there were some specific reason for an individual to do that.

    Here's the link: