{"id":49933,"date":"2009-11-24T13:18:37","date_gmt":"2009-11-24T18:18:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.marksdailyapple.com\/?p=9354"},"modified":"2009-11-24T13:18:37","modified_gmt":"2009-11-24T18:18:37","slug":"diet-as-dogma","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/49933","title":{"rendered":"Diet as Dogma"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"3331145People are dogmatic. We\u2019re territorial, stubborn, obstinate, and we cling to our ideologies even as accumulating evidence invalidates them. I sometimes wonder whether there\u2019s evolutionary precedent for this apparent character flaw \u2013 did stubborn dogmatism confer some benefit to our ancestors? Did our tendency to cling to one another, to shy away from that which opposes or clashes with our current paradigm (whether it be a new tribe with different practices encroaching on your land, or a guy you meet at a cocktail party with completely different political views) make us safer? To a point, yes. Being wary of anything new promotes better survival than a tendency to rush headlong into foolhardy pursuits. There\u2019s certainly that human legacy of fear of the unknown, and it normally manifests as dogmatic belief and cognitive dissonance. That much is obvious to anyone who watches the news or picks up a history book.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

But there\u2019s also that other legacy we\u2019re irrevocably tied to: the continued expansion of our knowledge base. Grok<\/a> may have been suspicious of different things and circumstances, but he also conquered that fear and discovered new horizons. By and large humans are explorers and innovators. We refute dogma and blaze new trails even as we cling to fear and ideology. We\u2019re pretty much a walking contradiction, just a big-brained upright problematic ape with existential issues that still manages to do pretty well for him or herself. They don\u2019t call us the most adaptive species on Earth for nothing.<\/p>\n

If we were more cold and logical – like the Vulcans of Star Trek – things might get a bit easier, ruled by reason and reason alone. Cognitive dissonance would disappear and ideology would mostly vanish, leaving only absolute fealty to pure data. We\u2019d get a lot done and there\u2019d be absolute scientific consensus, but how much fun would it really be?<\/p>\n

No, we\u2019re contradictory and confused. We\u2019ll make the emotionally difficult but realistic decision to put our aging pet to sleep, and then we\u2019ll break down and weep all night. We\u2019ll hear powerful evidence that refutes a deeply held belief and we\u2019ll internally acknowledge its significance, but then we\u2019re somehow able to dismiss it and maintain our delusion. Religious and ethnic clashes dot our history, never ending blood feuds, based on this text or that political cartoon, that continue unabated and will probably do so forever. Futile battles rage across Internet message boards \u2013 Playstation versus Xbox, Apple versus PC, vegetarian versus omnivore, Democrat versus Republican, carbohydrate versus fat \u2013 and it hardly goes anywhere. Graphs are posted and ignored, studies are quoted and brushed aside. Willful ignorance is proudly displayed. You can almost hear the fingers going in the ears (most people can\u2019t even stand to hear evidence that contradicts their belief \u2013 the always dependable \u201cla la la la\u201d defense!).<\/p>\n

People have the tendency to cluster around ideas as if they were tangible things and hold on for dear life. When we find something we like, or something that makes sense, like religion or a political stance or a diet, roots are planted and \u2013 for most of us \u2013 they are permanent. They\u2019re permanent mainly because it\u2019s easier that way.<\/strong> It takes less work to blindly cling to dogma. It\u2019s hard (and humbling) to reevaluate an entire belief system and start over. We prefer the path of least resistance, and we\u2019d simply rather not think too hard. Once the roots of a dogmatic belief find purchase in the hard packed earth of the lazy mind, they\u2019re staying put.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re not all like that, though. Some of us have fertile minds, brains that aren\u2019t burdened by an ego that refuses to believe it might be wrong about something. Others are just genuinely curious and thirsty for more knowledge (from any source); these are the same type of minds that shaped our evolutionary progress and brought us tools, mastery of fire, and exploration of new lands. They don\u2019t brush aside graphs or ignore studies that challenge their beliefs. They can\u2019t, because to ignore the truth is to oppose their very nature, no matter the inconvenience.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve all heard the supposedly universal protocol standards for polite company: don\u2019t talk politics, religion, or sex. Not on a first date, and definitely not when you meet your future wife\u2019s parents. It\u2019s not so much that these are impossible topics to discuss calmly and rationally without insults, ad hominem<\/em>, or physical violence entering the fray, because it can happen. Measured debate on controversial topics does take place, and it\u2019s possible for two people to hold directly oppositional views, express those views, and still remain amicable. It\u2019s just highly unlikely given our propensity to cling to dogma at all cost (and we\u2019ve got untold wars and death and destruction to show for it) and the rarity of people with thinking, fertile, thirsty minds.<\/p>\n

A new forbidden topic has emerged, though: diet.<\/strong> I\u2019d even say a diet, for many, is the<\/em> single most entrenched aspect of a their identity, more than religion (not everyone practices, but everyone has to eat) and more than politics (who isn\u2019t fed up with politics nowadays?). We literally are what we eat, and what we eat isn\u2019t just an isolated characteristic. It\u2019s intertwined with politics (veganism is as much a declarative political statement as it is a nutritional one) and religion. For some, it even becomes a religion with its own set of morals and laws. Diet as absolute dogma can be far more problematic than religious or political dogmas in many ways. See, at least there\u2019s separation of church and state in this country; with diet, though, there\u2019s that looming institutional triangular standard literally ordained by government to inform and (essentially) coerce unwitting citizens into a certain way of eating. Maybe if the nutritional pyramid were built on the backs of rigorous science and evolutionary biology it wouldn\u2019t be so bad, but its blueprints were drawn up by Big Agra and Big Pharma (or worse, terrible, bumbling, bad science).<\/p>\n

You\u2019re here, on this site, because you recognize that the official dietary dogma is misguided at best and murderous at worst. You realize that, whatever your religious (non)belief, humans are \u201cdesigned\u201d to eat a certain way \u2013 and that the evolutionary diet is totally incompatible with the reigning dogma. I\u2019m here every day because I see a real chance to make a difference. I see people making positive changes, extending their lives and improving their health. Every day, there\u2019s a different success story<\/a> in my inbox, but I never get sick of them. We have assumed the mantle of our innovating forebears, those Groks and Grokettes that dared to crack an auroch\u2019s tibia and extract the strange delicious stuff inside, or follow the animals to new lands and new opportunities. We could have died out with the Neanderthal, but we were far too curious and capable to let that happen. Ours is a legacy of pursuing knowledge. It\u2019s all we know.<\/p>\n

But you know what? I\u2019m starting to notice that old dogmatic view creep in to the Primal community. Those immovable roots are taking hold.<\/strong> On one hand, it\u2019s understandable. When you\u2019ve got the weight of the evidence in your favor, it\u2019s easy to get cocky and dismissive of other views. I mean, don\u2019t get me wrong; I believe the Primal Blueprint to be the<\/em> path to health, strength, and energy (I wouldn\u2019t have written a book called The Primal Blueprint<\/em><\/a> if I didn\u2019t think that!). I just want to stress that the foundation of the PB and MDA is science \u2013 ignored, brushed aside, inconvenient-to-CW<\/a> science, but science all the same. And, like all good science, it\u2019s constantly being challenged and refined. It needs<\/em> to be challenged. When I started putting together the PB all those years ago, I was challenging the dietary wisdom I held near and dear to my heart for decades. Decades! And I didn\u2019t stop there. Early readers might recall my prescribing \u201climited grains\u201d way back when. I realized my error, took a closer look at the science on grains, and changed my stance accordingly. Now I’m just about as big an opponent of grains<\/a> as one can be.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s how you\u2019ve got to do it. You have to welcome challenges and reevaluate your dietary dogmas as needed. I\u2019m certainly of the opinion that we\u2019ve got things pretty well covered with the PB, but it never hurts to refine your argument or gather new evidence. If someone questions the Primal stance on grains, don\u2019t casually dismiss them \u2013 convince them! (Of course, if hard data doesn\u2019t convince, don\u2019t wear yourself out.) Even if you\u2019re upset or frustrated and he or she is being clearly obstructionist, think of the debate as rust removal, as a way to bone up on the latest studies and clinical data in support of the high fat Primal diet<\/a>. There\u2019s a whole wide world of people who will actively challenge your evolutionary dietary views, usually with half-truths and CW nonsense, but there are formidable opponents who won\u2019t be so easily swayed or dismissed. You\u2019ve got to be on your game.<\/p>\n

I honestly think we have the opportunity to reach more people. The Primal\/paleo communities are growing and improving and spreading like wildfire. We have the chance to be at the forefront of a revolution of how we approach food in this country (and this world), but we run the risk of becoming what we rail against: dietary dogma.<\/strong> We should never let stagnation set in, and dogmas and ideologies stagnate as a rule, by definition. You don\u2019t want to force people into accepting the Primal life. You just want to give them the tools to change their life and reevaluate everything they\u2019ve ever been taught about nutrition and fitness.<\/p>\n

The forum<\/a> is one such tool, and it\u2019s a fantastic one for the most part. What we don\u2019t want, though, is name calling or one-upping. No know-it-alls that patronize beginners. That\u2019s beside the point. It\u2019s supposed to be a community of like-minded individuals (sprinkled with a few skeptics and contrarians to keep us honest!) supporting one another in our effort to find truth and change our lives for the better. Support, of course, means challenging each other\u2019s beliefs, but it should be done with real facts.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t get me wrong. I love the heated debates that take place every day, as long as they remain actual debates with actual arguments. I love the fact that support systems and impromptu experts on various topics have sprung up. I like how forum members have a sort of Batcall for Tarlach when it\u2019s a carnivore question or for Griff when it\u2019s about lipid panels. I love almost everything about the forum, but I don\u2019t like the creeping sense of dogma.<\/p>\n

So, how about we watch out for that and nip it in the bud? I\u2019ve been submerged in dietary and fitness dogma, and it ain\u2019t pretty. Believe me: avoiding it will only make us stronger. Question your beliefs and challenge the Primal diet. Even if the PB doesn\u2019t catch on and go mainstream, at least we\u2019ll know we\u2019re being honest with ourselves and consistent in our application of science to our diet.<\/p>\n

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this so hit me up with a comment. Thanks, everyone.<\/p>\n

Get Free Health Tips, Recipes and Workouts<\/a> Delivered to Your Inbox<\/em><\/em><\/h4>\n

Related posts:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Unrestricted Low-Carb Diet Wins Hands Down<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. What’s Wrong With The Zone Diet?<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Fox News and Low-Carb Diet Talk<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    People are dogmatic. We\u2019re territorial, stubborn, obstinate, and we cling to our ideologies even as accumulating evidence invalidates them. I sometimes wonder whether there\u2019s evolutionary precedent for this apparent character flaw \u2013 did stubborn dogmatism confer some benefit to our ancestors? Did our tendency to cling to one another, to shy away from that which […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49933"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49933\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}