In this brief video, Loren Cordain presents information about curing MS with diet, the theory of why it works, and a bit of background on the Paleo diet.
It raises the same question as always - why is MS a neolithic disease only? If a particular diet provides relief to those with MS, wouldn't that be a significant indicator that the same diet should be tested as a prevention for the other diseases of civilization? Conversely, if an authority advocates a diet as healthy, but it does not provide relief from MS, acne, and other acute versions of the diseases of civilization, should that be a warning signal?
In short, I'm proposing a conceptual basis for testing the potential healthfulness of a diet, absent a long term intervention study to evaluate mortality. Sure, the diet should have a positive effect on some of the current, imperfect markers of long term health such as A1c, cholesterol (primarily small dense LDL), and triglycerides. But if it also cures gout, obesity, MS, acne, and high blood pressure, those should be considered significant markers of success/failure.
The great thing about Cordain is his depth of knowledge about the science. Ironically, that also seems to be the problem with some of Cordain's early work, in that he bit off on bad science about salt, saturated fat, and the "net acid load" on the kidney and it's relationship to bone disease. On that note, he's refined his stance over the years as the evidence become more clear - bravo, sir.
It raises the same question as always - why is MS a neolithic disease only? If a particular diet provides relief to those with MS, wouldn't that be a significant indicator that the same diet should be tested as a prevention for the other diseases of civilization? Conversely, if an authority advocates a diet as healthy, but it does not provide relief from MS, acne, and other acute versions of the diseases of civilization, should that be a warning signal?
In short, I'm proposing a conceptual basis for testing the potential healthfulness of a diet, absent a long term intervention study to evaluate mortality. Sure, the diet should have a positive effect on some of the current, imperfect markers of long term health such as A1c, cholesterol (primarily small dense LDL), and triglycerides. But if it also cures gout, obesity, MS, acne, and high blood pressure, those should be considered significant markers of success/failure.
The great thing about Cordain is his depth of knowledge about the science. Ironically, that also seems to be the problem with some of Cordain's early work, in that he bit off on bad science about salt, saturated fat, and the "net acid load" on the kidney and it's relationship to bone disease. On that note, he's refined his stance over the years as the evidence become more clear - bravo, sir.
No comments:
Post a Comment