-
-
-
-
Yes, but everyone is allowed their foibles.
-
To be fair, researching and applying evolutionary principles to diet, particularly based on our paleolithic evolution, have been done since at least the 70s. And Staffan Lindeberg, the "father" of Paleo, has been conducting his research and promoting ancestral diets since the late 90s.
Taubes published his seminal articles regarding nutrition in the 2000s, and his magnum opus, "Good Calories, Bad Calories", was published only in 2007.
That said, the popularity of the "paleo" movement has only really caught on to any degree in the last few years. On the one hand, it's a perfectly good set of principles on which to base a diet. On the other hand, people like Paul Jaminet and so on, with their "safe starches" seem to me recently to be becoming overly relaxed about higher carbohydrate loads in diets, so long as you don't get those loads from grains and sugars.
Whatever other "just so stories" they might evince, it seems clear to me that the majority of our evolutionary pinch-points did *not* involve the abundant availability of carbohydrates. Combine this fact with the scientifically valid notions of damaging glycatory effects of high blood-sugar, and of the research into the effects of low chronic insulin on longevity, and it seems clear that Taubes has the more coherent narrative - with the Paleo folks having perhaps a more attractive tale.
If one distills that which all these diets have in common - Bunting, Atkins, Taubes, Paleo etc - then it is the removal of most neolithic grains, refined foods and added sugars. If people did just these things, I think the world would be primarily healthier. THEN one can argue about how much sweet potato or how many bananas one should eat. -
-
I think that it can go either way. In a language like Mandarin, with which an English speak has no foothold, one feels both liberation and terror in learning.
-
-
-
I think we have bigger racist fish to fry.
-
No. I am bad at time management myself!
-
So long as there isn't too much sugar in it, it's fine. A good dark chocolate. I have even had a 100% bar (no sugar, just cocoa mass and cocoa butter), which I genuinely enjoy. It initially tastes bitter, but as you roll it on your palate, sweet notes emerge like caramel:
http://www.chocolats-pralus.com/en/madagascar-100-bar.html -
I like the Disney dark rides, I have to confess.
-
I mean that anyone who feels the need to differentiate art from any other human expression is already more alienated than they should be. Art should be in everything or nothing.
-
I supported the war because it provided the only option for deposing the murderous kleptocracy in power. Whether it eventually were replaced with something worse was not a consideration: it was the *only* opportunity to give people the "chaos" necessary to break the evil stagnation.
This is not to say that I think the war was conducted well, or even for particularly laudable motives. But I do not live in a Utopia. -
Yes. That's philosophy. No problem with philosophy.
-
-
I suspect he has more than enough money at the moment to do just that. He is just looking to justify his making even more money still.
-
One can achieve both elegance and formal correctness much of the time by reformatting the utterance.
-
You draw a false dichotomy. Those hunters who painted those animals on those caves thousands of years ago were no more Artists than Hunters. They were people, doing things that people feel the need to do.
-
Apparently it's been validated that men tend to push and barge in such circumstances, so it may be worthy to give women the head-start if there are good utilitarian reasons to do so
-
Nick Mailer’s Bio
No
