I don’t find that they are “super-additive”, and my position is actually very close to yours. There may be some unknown interactions, but it’s more we don’t know which specific parts have which benefits, and overall it’s safer to follow most of it.
For example, getting natural sunlight (while avoiding burning), is probably better than taking vitamin D supplements. I don’t know this for sure, but I’d bet that way at least slightly. I suspect that there are some interaction effects as well, but that’s not the main reason I was saying you get the most benefit from enacting everything.
Your starting point for “let’s try this set of practices as a bundle” is somewhat reasonable: we should expect to be optimally calibrated for the ancestral evolutionary environment—except for things like genes allowing for efficient digestion of dairy and wheat have spreading dramatically over the last 10k years. So, to the extent that it’s really true that we’re optimally calibrated for exactly the AEE and the daydreamed bundle of practices really gets us something like it (in all the right ratios), then you should pattern your life exactly after it.
Also: not everything needs to be “just right” because we have some self-regulatory or alternative-synthesis mechanisms that allow us to live in quite different environments and through lean times.
And of course, I assume that life expectancy was significantly less in the AEE—but obviously you hope to suggest only the positive practices. I guess my point is: since we don’t know exactly what parts of the AEE we’re tuned (with low tolerance) for, and we don’t know exactly how to most effectively live by some modern analog of the AEE, it’s best to try and find by science the optimal level of each practice (while holding all other aspects in the best-known-so-far range).
And, as always in such things, you can do what makes you feel happier in the near term by haphazard personal experimentation, while hoping that research will warn in time of any hidden long term damage you’re doing.
it’s best to try and find by science the optimal level of each practice (while holding all other aspects in the best-known-so-far range).
Yes. This is the underlying guiding principle. But it begs the question,
What is the best-known-so-far? Clearly the standard American diet is far from it. Clearly less modern diets have benefits over modern ones (and vis a versa!). There are many traditional diets known to have very low levels of diabetes, stroke, and heart disease (the predominant diseases of western civilizations), and which fly in the face of modern nutrition. Why aren’t these diets considered the best-known-so-far?
No one is arguing that a paleo mantra should replace science. People are arguing that the currently accepted theories are grossly wrong, and are offering a new hypothesis.
I don’t find that they are “super-additive”, and my position is actually very close to yours. There may be some unknown interactions, but it’s more we don’t know which specific parts have which benefits, and overall it’s safer to follow most of it.
For example, getting natural sunlight (while avoiding burning), is probably better than taking vitamin D supplements. I don’t know this for sure, but I’d bet that way at least slightly. I suspect that there are some interaction effects as well, but that’s not the main reason I was saying you get the most benefit from enacting everything.
Your starting point for “let’s try this set of practices as a bundle” is somewhat reasonable: we should expect to be optimally calibrated for the ancestral evolutionary environment—except for things like genes allowing for efficient digestion of dairy and wheat have spreading dramatically over the last 10k years. So, to the extent that it’s really true that we’re optimally calibrated for exactly the AEE and the daydreamed bundle of practices really gets us something like it (in all the right ratios), then you should pattern your life exactly after it.
Also: not everything needs to be “just right” because we have some self-regulatory or alternative-synthesis mechanisms that allow us to live in quite different environments and through lean times.
And of course, I assume that life expectancy was significantly less in the AEE—but obviously you hope to suggest only the positive practices. I guess my point is: since we don’t know exactly what parts of the AEE we’re tuned (with low tolerance) for, and we don’t know exactly how to most effectively live by some modern analog of the AEE, it’s best to try and find by science the optimal level of each practice (while holding all other aspects in the best-known-so-far range).
And, as always in such things, you can do what makes you feel happier in the near term by haphazard personal experimentation, while hoping that research will warn in time of any hidden long term damage you’re doing.
Yes. This is the underlying guiding principle. But it begs the question,
What is the best-known-so-far? Clearly the standard American diet is far from it. Clearly less modern diets have benefits over modern ones (and vis a versa!). There are many traditional diets known to have very low levels of diabetes, stroke, and heart disease (the predominant diseases of western civilizations), and which fly in the face of modern nutrition. Why aren’t these diets considered the best-known-so-far?
No one is arguing that a paleo mantra should replace science. People are arguing that the currently accepted theories are grossly wrong, and are offering a new hypothesis.