Today on Blogcritics
Home » Evils of Soy Prove Paleo Diet

Evils of Soy Prove Paleo Diet

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Recently, I became aware of the idea that some medical practitioners believe soy is evil and people shouldn’t eat it.  Being the spouse of a vegetarian, I’ve eaten my share of soy products and hated almost every bite.  If you are going to eat soy as a meat replacement, just eat some meat.  After doing some research about the evils of soy, I wasn’t able to change my spouse’s mind about eating meat, but I saw a connection between it and the Paleo Diet.

Dr. Kaayla T Daniel, PhD, CCN, believes that soy is not a health food, does not prevent disease and has not even been proven safe.  Laboratory studies link soy to malnutrition, digestive problems, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders, even heart disease and cancer.[i]  Like wheat, soy wasn’t eaten by people until agriculture was developed.  Even then, soy wasn’t eaten by people until more than 2200 years ago when the Chinese learned to ferment it.  In evolutionary terms, soy has been a part of the human diet for a very short period of time.

The Paleo Diet is based on the concept that modern man is designed to eat the types of foods that our ancestors consumed during the Palaeolithic era.  This era occurred between 2.5 million and 12000 years BP.  During the period, the early hominids were hunters and gatherers.  Fruit, vegetables, plants, nuts, fish, seafood and game were the staples of the Paleo Diet.  To learn more about the Paleo Diet read What is the Paleo Diet. 

For optimal nutrition, modern man needs to eat like his ancestors.  Evolution has modified homo sapiens genes to maximize nutrition from a hunter-gatherer diet.  A perfect example of evolutionary genetics and its relationship to diet can be seen in the variation of the human amylase gene in the article Evolutionary Genetics Study Validates Paleo Diet

Soy has been part of our diet for a little more than 2,000 years.  In evolutionary terms, this is a blink of an eye.  From the perspective of the Paleo Diet paradigm, the fact soy causes digestive problems, is linked to malnutrition and may cause heart disease or cancer shouldn’t come as a surprise.  Evolution didn’t design people to eat soy.  Two thousand years isn’t a long enough time period for our bodies to learn how to eat it. 

Soy can’t even be eaten by people in its natural state.  It has to be processed either through cooking, refining, or fermentation.  You can’t eat raw soy beans.  This is the first clue that the human body is not designed to eat these products.  To eat soy is to eat a processed and refined food, and these types of food play no role in the Paleo Diet.

How do the evils of soy prove the Paleo Diet paradigm?  The very fact that thousands of people are allergic to it and it may cause so many health problems.  If homo sapiens were designed to eat it, soy wouldn’t have the allergenic properties that it has and people would be able to eat it in its natural state.  Allergies to fruits, vegetables, and animal protein are rare.  These are the foods that we ate during the Palaeolithic era.  Our bodies were designed to eat these foods over hundreds of thousands of years, not 2,000 years.  It’s no wonder that so many people are allergic to soy.


 

 

[i]  Kaayla T Daniel, The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food, New trends Publishing, 2005

 

Powered by

About Layne Pennell

  • Jordan Richardson

    So the crux of this argument is that human beings weren’t “designed to eat soy?” Interesting, but I’m curious about what we were designed to eat and how that weighs against this rather weird soy theory.

    You say that you can’t eat raw soy beans. There are plenty of other raw foods that contain harmful toxins, including apple seeds, mushrooms (hydrazines) and so forth. And when you add in the dangers of eating raw meat products, you’ve got a pretty healthy list of things we just shouldn’t digest.

    Our ancestors probably did eat raw meat, though, so where does that put us? Clearly Tatar people from Central Asia ate raw meat (thanks for the steak tartare) and other cultures routinely did similar things.

    So…isn’t it reasonable to say that our food has changed and evolved? You can’t eat or drink anything these days without some risk of microbial pathogens or some other such thing.

    Then you suggest that because “thousands of people” are allergic to soy – a rather low number, don’t you think, given the billions of people on earth – it wasn’t “meant to be consumed.”

    I wonder how many more people are lactose intolerant. Or allergic to peanuts. Or egg allergies (in which people are allergic to the proteins in the whites). Or wheat. Or tree nuts. Or shellfish and seafood. And so on.

    So what does that say about those foods if this theory about evil soy is to be taken seriously?

    Instances of food allergies are rising, too. And they are becoming localized, with interesting cases of allergies attributed to certain geographical areas. Celery allergies are more common in Central Europe, for instance.

    Perhaps the “soy industry” is trying suppress the “evils” of their product. Perhaps not. But the discussion certainly deserves more context and depth than your article affords, that’s for sure.

  • stan dard

    there’s only one per cent protein in human breast milk. all western babies are checked at birth for protein intolerance.pku. ther’e more protein in beans than meat. animal protein stays in the body for 3 dayds while vegetable protein 2 days. however, with an excretion rate of 80% pepsin works 20% of the time,unlike amylase…we are not to eat it obviously, causes menstruation too, but tastebuds do rule our conglomerate

  • http://www.paleocookbookdiet.net Layne Pennell

    Jordan Richardson makes some very valid points that deserve attention.

    I agree that the discussion of the evils of soy and the soy industry needs a more depth analysis than this article affords. The point of the article was not to debate the evils of the soy industry but to use this theory to help validate the Paleo Diet paradigm.

    Mr. Richardson helps to validate this paradigm with his comparison of wheat and peanut allergies and lactose intolerance to soy. None of these foods are part of the Paleo Diet because they are not part of hunter gatherer diets. Human consumption of these foods is a result of agriculture.

    The primary principle of the Paleo Diet is modern humans are designed to eat the types of food our hominid ancestors ate during our greatest period of evolutionary change. Perhaps these allergies exist because hominids didn’t consume them during early human evolutionary periods.

    Thanks for your insights Jordan. I find the localization of food allergies interesting. I’ll have to research that.

  • http://beforewisdom.com Beforewisdom

    You might find this alternative review of the book mentioned in the blog interesting.

    link

  • http://jonsobel.com/ Jon Sobel

    When I read this I wondered about some of the same things Jordan brought up. Using food allergies to back up the paleo theory seems dubious given the complicated situation with allergies. That doesn’t take away from the fascinating implications of the paleo theory, if it’s correct. Perhaps it is in some way analogous to evolutionary psychology. We are “meant” to eat certain things based on our situation when we evolved, but in the same way we are also “meant” to behave in certain ways that aren’t considered civilized any more.

    It’s all very interesting. I look forward to reading more about the paleo diet and its implications.

  • http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/01/anti-soya-brigade-ignore-scaremongering FACTCHECK COMMISSION

    ATTENTION TO ALL VIEWERS:

    FALSIFIED MATERIAL HAS BEEN DETECTED BEING SPREAD BY THIS BLOG.

    Is soy a big bad scary… “demon bean”, or is the “anti”-soya brigade using “scare stories” and pseudo-science to further their own Agenda? If you look carefully, most of the anti Soy stories can be traced back to 1 single extremist-group in the US, called the Weston A Price Foundation (WAPF).

    The WAPF front group claims to be dedicated to promoting “good nutrition” by restoring nutrient-dense animal products to the diet – particularly unpasteurised “raw” whole milk. (Info: Recently their advice on Raw milk just killed another human child.)

    The Weston A. Price Foundation (lobbyist group) claims that saturated animal fat is “essential” for good health(wrong) and that animal fat intake and high cholesterol levels have “no” link with heart disease or cancer(false). They say that vegetarians have lower life expectancy than meat-eaters(false), and that “historically humans have always eaten large amounts of animal fat”(debunked). All this, of course, contradicts all the leading advisory bodies in the world, including the World Health Organisation, American Dietetic Association and the British Medical Association. (WAPF and its members purport false information that has been found scientifically flawed.)

    This US-based fringe organisation WAPF is bent on citing scientifically-flawed studies, to promote their own agenda and has influenced a vast number of consumers, duping them into thinking of soya as some sort of dietary pariah.

    The soya story dates back to New Zealand in the early 1990s, when a successful lawyer, Richard James, a millionaire on a mission, approached toxicologist Mike Fitzpatrick and asked him to investigate what was killing his expensive parrots (very Monty Python, I know). Anyway, Fitzpatrick agreed it was soya and has since campaigned vigorously against it as a food for humans -nonsense, since people have been eating soya for 3,000 years.

    (Mike Fiztpatrick was interviewed) for Radio New Zealand and campaigns against soya. He was so off & aggressive they (Radio New Zealand) couldn’t broadcast the interview. Fitzpatrick is a supporter of WAPF, actually an honorary board member. (WAPF is the Weston A Price Foundation)

    Another of the WAPF organisation’s spokespersons is a man called Dr Stephen Byrnes. He published an article claiming that vegetarianism is unhealthy and is destroying the environment. He *boasted* of his high animal fat diet and robust health – and, unfortunately, he DIED OF A STROKE. at AGE 42.

    (The spokesperson of the same organization that Kaayla T Daniel belongs to, bragged about how he was healthier than vegetarians, ate meat, and it was good for your heart…died of heart disease.)

    There were more than 40 scientific inaccuracies in the said article, including the direct misquoting of scientific studies. Incidentally, the editor of the Ecologist, Zac Goldsmith, is also an honorary board member of the WAPF.

    Another of the (WAPF front group) organisation’s supporters, Kaayla Daniel PhD, sits on the board of directors (of the Quack Foundation known as WAPF) and has written an entire book attacking soya (The Whole Soy Story).

    The majority of what the WAPF says is anecdotal, and scientifically flawed..

    If there was any evidence for this in humans at all, the UK government would have banned soya infant formula or at least issued health warnings.

    Even after commissioning a 440-page investigation into the safety of soya – they have not issued such warnings because there was no evidence for any harmful effect..

    In reality, there is no scientific evidence that the consumption of soya is harmful to humans.

    NOTIFICATION:
    False information has been caught being spread by this “blog”, the source of the false posting is a blogger going by “Layne Pennell” who is repeating scientifically-flawed material emanating from Kaayla T Daniel, a board member tied to a known extremist front group known as the WAPF.

    THE SOY SCARE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED TO BE A HOAX AND FALLACIOUS.

    THE WARNING AGAINST THIS WAS ALREADY SENT OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
    Didn’t know this? Go Look for yourself.

  • http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html FACTCHECK COMMISSION

    THE WESTON A. PRICE FOUNDATION (WAPF) IS A DEBUNKED FRONT GROUP LISTED ON “QUACK WATCH”
    Watchdog organization QuackWatch has identified Weston A. Price as a nutritional Quack organization.

    KAAYLA T DANIEL CAUGHT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WAPF FRONT GROUP:
    INDIVIDUALS IDENTIFIED:
    – Kaayla T. Daniel
    – Sally Fallon-Morell
    – Mary G. Enig
    – Julia Ross
    and Joseph Mercola and more are all members caught on the board of directors at the WAPF front group.

    THE BOOK BELIEVED BY THIS PALEO DIET AFFICIONADO IS FROM A KNOWN FRONTGROUP.

  • http://www.paleocookbookdiet.net/ Layne Pennell

    The Factcheck Commission loves to rant. Hundreds of words are used to discredit the Weston A Price Foundation but not once do I mention it or reference material from it. Who are you going to believe, someone with a Ph.D or the mysterious Factcheck Commission.

    Does the fact the Dr. Daniel sit on a board of directors of WAPF discredit her work and knowledge. The commision would have you believe that.

    It’s easy to try to discredit with blog links. The commission believes that displaying an opinion that differs from what is written is enough to disprove science. A conflicting viewpoint does not mean that the information is wrong.

    It’s unfortunate that the Factcheck Commission claims the website PaleoCookbook Diet.net is a hoax. I have a degree in Anthropology and have a culinary diploma with an emphasis on nutrition. I have written many articles with notations to references from scholarly sources. What does the so called Factcheck Commission have except blog links?

  • FACTCHECK COMMISSION

    WAPF MEMBERS EXPOSED MAKING UN-SCIENTIFIC SOY HEALTH CLAIMS

    NEWS: “FDA Orders WAPF member Dr. Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims”

    Both Kaayla T Daniel and Joseph Mercola are tied to the Weston A. Price Foundation. A documented legal FEDERAL warning letter has been issued against Dr. Joseph Mercola for making false health claims. Like Daniels, Mercola a documented violator also goes around making nutritional claims about wheat and grain, advocating a no-grain paleo style diet, advocating raw milk, and other spurious quack claims. This time he was caught making claims not backed by scientific evidence and socked with a FEDERAL CITATION for making claims in order to further push his agenda.

    TO VIEW THE FEDERAL WARNING, Enter: “CASEWATCH FDAWARNING CL-04-HFS-810-134″ into Google.

    PERPETRATOR LAYNE PENNEL HAS ESPOUSED MATERIAL TRACED TO A MEMBER OF A KNOWN FRONT-GROUP

  • FACTCHECK COMMISSION

    USAGE OF UNSCIENTIFIC SOY CLAIMS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PALEOLITHIC DIET DEBUNKED

    EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CITATIONS OF UNSCIENTIFIC FALSIFIED MATERIAL USED BY LAYNE PENNEL:

    QUOTE: “Dr. Kaayla T Daniel, PhD, CCN, believes.. Laboratory studies link soy to malnutrition, digestive problems, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders, even heart disease and cancer”=FALSE.

    1. SOY THYROID CLAIMS SHOWN SCIENTIFICALLY FALSE:

    FALSE UN-SCIENTIFIC CLAIM by Kaayla T Daniel: “Laboratory studies link soy to..thyroid dysfunction”(wrong).

    HERE IS THE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION: “A review of 14 clinical trials concluded there was little evidence that soy foods or isoflavones had an adverse affect on thyroid function in healthy human subjects.”

    “Studies published subsequent to this review have also found no effect on thyroid function. Thus, quite clearly in individuals with adequate iodine intake and normal thyroid function, the evidence indicates soy foods even in very large amounts do not adversely affect thyroid function.”

    View it: THE “SOY IS EVIL” HOAX IS NOW EXPOSED AS A MYTH.

  • FACTCHECK COMMISSION

    VERIFIED TESTED SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ON SOY & THYROID FUNCTION:

    PUBMED: “Isoflavone supplements do not affect thyroid function”
    Study: “Serum thyroid-stimulating hormone, thyroxine, and triiodothyronine were measured at baseline and after 90 and 180 days.”
    RESULTS: “The results indicate that in this group of healthy iodine-replete subjects, soy isoflavones DO NOT adversely affect thyroid function.”

    SOURCE: Scientific Journal, Journal of Medicinal Food – United States National Library of Medicine

    Direct scientific information from research published by the NIH – National Institute of Health.

    – Doctor Mark Messina MS, PhD
    – Gene A. Spiller, PhD, DSc, FACN, CNS
    – Bonnie Bruce, DrPH, MPH, RD, FACN

    Note not only the PhD’s, but DSc’s, FACN’s, CNS’s, RD’s, and certified Dieticians with the ARS Human Nutrition Research Center, Stanford University, and the U.S. Natl Institute of Health.

    This evidence is Scientific Research from the Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Stanford.

    ALL VIEWERS MAY VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF

    Note that the individual “Kaayla T Daniel” who has been exposed as part of the scam front group even goes around billing herself as “The Naughty Nutritionist” (that is not a joke), and is known for duping the public and consumers with specious information.

    THE WAPF LINKED SOY MATERIAL TRACED TO KAAYLA DANIEL IS NOW EXPOSED AS SCIENTIFICALLY FALSE, INCLUDING BY THE U.S. NIH.

  • FACTCHECK COMMISSION

    MORE EXAMPLES OF UNSCIENTIFIC USAGE OF SOY CLAIMS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PALEOLITHIC DIET DEBUNKED

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

    2. HOAX CLAIMS ABOUT SOY AND TESTOSTERONE USED TO SCARE UNDER-EDUCATED MEN.

    Kaayla T Daniel was caught spreading the Soy & Testosterone internet hoax. This was meant to ‘scare’ poorly educated men, and men looking for a justification to eat meat, by spreading the false myth that eating Tofu reduced your testosterone. This “Naughty Nutritionist” with a paper-degree from a college in Cincinnati, known as the Union Institute, bragged that she had managed to get her information featured on the Bodybuilding website “T-Nation”, a bodybuilder chat board site where men discuss the use of chemical roids and other muscle building schemes. She touted that she had managed to convince these muscle heads that soy would somehow decrease their testosterone.

    Kaayla T Daniel purported: “plant estrogens in soy interfere with testosterone production, reducing the sex drive of men”

    THE SOY MAKES YOU GAY OR REDUCES YOUR MEN’S TESTOSTERONE MYTH IS FALSE:

    HERE THE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION:
    REVIEW FINDS *NO* EFFECT OF SOY ON TESTOSTERONE
    SCIENCE: “A review of 15 studies into the influence of soy proteins or isoflavones on male hormones has found no evidence of an estrogen-like effect.”

    Note: Please note that this is not just 1 study. This is proven and verified by over 15 different studies, measuring all aspects of the science. The conclusion immediately debunked this dietary quack Kaayla T Daniel. Even though the soy testosterone myth may be spread all over the internet now by Daniel, and other members of the WAPF, and perpetuated by men who are under-educated in the subject and don’t know science, the ‘soy contains estrogen’ myth is exposed as an internet hoax.

    Conclusion: “These results suggest that consumption of soy foods or isoflavone supplements would NOT result in the adverse effects associated with lower [testosterone] levels.”

    No significant effects of soy protein or isoflavone intake on Testosterone or SHBG were detected…There was no significant pooled effect of soy isoflavone consumption on the hormonal profile, Testosterone and SHBG.”

    Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis
    Authors: J. M. Hamilton-Reeves, G. Vazquez, S. J. Duval,
    W. R. Phipps, M. S. Kurzer, and M. J. Messina.
    doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.04.038

    Soy has No effect on men’s testosterone. Soy does not reduce testosterone. Soy does not reduce muscle it builds men’s muscle. Soy does not contain estrogen. Not only does soy NOT contain estrogen, but soy actually works to block the effects of estrogen, and it contains protein, so a man eating soy will actually become more muscular. As witnessed in the fact that virtually ALL of the best PROTEIN sources for muscle building in a bodybuilding store are vegetarian: WHEY PROTEIN (vegetarian), ALBUMIN PROTEIN (egg, vegetarian), and SOY PROTEIN (vegan). There’s no meat-drink, pork-shakes, or protein bars with bits of fish in it. Notice that all the best protein sources in bodybuilding stores are vegetarian. This is because they’ve been tested and build muscle.

    To make things even worse for himself, this blog author stated: “If you are going to eat soy as a meat replacement, just eat some meat.”–Guess what is contained in MEAT?–Feminine Mammalian Estrogen. When a man eats meat, a male is ingesting actual doses of Feminine estrogen which CAN have an estrogenic effect.

    MEAT, NOT SOY, CONTAINS FEMININE ESTROGEN

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Factcheck Commission: One fact you haven’t checked is that it is BC policy to have active links in comments, not raw urls. I’ve fixed up your earlier posts but there are simply too many in the latest one so I have deleted it. Please feel free to repost with the links correctly formatted.

    Christopher Rose
    Blogcritics Comments Editor

  • FACTCHECK COMMISSION

    1 fact that such a policy hasn’t checked is that active links can be a Security Threat.

    Our links were clear, visible, and open. Allowing all viewers to see exactly what the true source is, and thereby allowing any viewer to make a good choice, which allows all viewers to remain confident in the reputation and safety of any link when clicking on things on the internet.

    Here’s what we mean…

    FORCING ACTIVE LINKS:

    By such a method of ACTIVE LINKS, some user could go and sneakily make some link, such as the following:

    [Blue underlined text saying something GOOD] + [hidden url link of something bad]

    in other words, there’s absolutely no safe guard in a link that would stop some person from posting “Click here to go to USATODAY” and then hidden underneath that, unseen by all your viewers, it could go to http blah blah some virus site dot net. Thus such ACTIVE LINKS are a safety concern.

    The current policy allows more of a possibility your viewers to get infected.

    OUR METHOD:

    By our method, we showed the full, clear, url for all to see. You can see the url, you can see what site you’re going to, you can better have an idea beforehand if you (the viewer) even wish to visit that site, or see the link, or the page.

    For example, if we post a link to an article on a scientific study, and it happens to be in (example) USATODAY, a viewer can say Oh, I don’t like that paper I’m not going to even bother clicking on it. But in an ‘active link’ to the viewer that could look like anything. You could even write “This will NOT take you to USATODAY” and under an active link it could take you right to USATODAY. This active link method exposes viewers to risk. The only way users can see the source then, is to hover the mouse over the link and rely on their browser to show the url using pop up text.

    Ours is clear and shows exactly the site it is going to. And that is why we use it, and that is why it is better. In fact, you may want to change this policy of yours, and not just for this 1 blog, but for the entire site. Ours is safer. And open. And that is why we do it.

    We actually noticed our posts being *altered*. Our posts are now not all the way we had posted them. And we did not want them to be altered, but we figured your System was doing it. (Some comment-systems automatically parse links) But it is Non-Standard among systems to actually have one which FORCES users to use Active Text links, which actually reduces safety.

    Nevertheless, that being said, we shall now re-do the mentioned cited post, and we WILL conform to your policy of using active links and shall repost the comment which contained important scientific information and was deleted.

    Yes, there were many links in the post. We agree. Usually most people need only a couple, before they get the information. However in this instance, one link was posted, and not gotten. So another was needed to back it up. And that was not enough. And in this case there is a sheer preponderance of medical evidence backing this up.

    And what makes it more important that this information be visible, is that we’re not just talking about someone’s ‘favorite color’ or what music somebody likes here, some opinion, the information being put forth in this blog could have an actual effect on someone’s health. This isn’t just some opinion such as what to wear, the false information being put forth by the blogger is medically linked to causing Cancer, and worse. And that is among what was being spread by this blogger to this site’s viewing public. Someone could read the false information being plainly espoused by this blogger on your site, and it could end up being believed by some viewer out there and actually affect someone’s wellbeing.

    Thus that is more important than clicking an active link and someone in your viewership here catching a compuer virus, that one you can fix, or even buy another computer. For some things you cant.

    And that is why it is important for every viewer to see the scientific and medical information from the reputable sites that we had posted.

  • Jordan Richardson

    FACTCHECK COMMISSION, who exactly is “we?”

  • FACTCHECK COMMISSION

    Layne Pennel erroneously writes: “The very fact that thousands of people are allergic to it and it may cause so many health problems.[sic] If homo sapiens were designed to eat it, [it] wouldn’t have the allergenic properties that it has and people would be able to eat it.” – THEN CLAIMS: “If you are going to eat [it] as a meat replacement, just eat some meat.” -MEAT WHICH IS KNOWN TO RESULT IN SOME OF THE MOST AGGRESSIVE HUMAN CANCERS KNOWN TO MAN.

    So in the quest to tout this debunked “Paleo” diet, he just replaced allergies with giving you Cancer. And the original allergy claim wasn’t even right.

    This is PaleoHypocrisy – Recognize here, that what he has just done, is state that IF humans were “designed” to eat something then people should be able to eat it, and then pounces on soya for causing an allergy(which is spurious) and then turns around and cheers meat, which can cause cancer and human death. This is a key feature of the Paleo diet. Paleo man never ate it, and it can lead to cancer.

    This is why the Paleo Diet is now regarded as a scheme. Its subscribers often uninformed, and easily duped by things that are made up to appear like science but are hoaxes. Many believers in the Paleo diet merely work to confirm something they just want to believe, and ignore the actual correct scientific evidence. Here’s an example: Steak. This blogger, and nearly all Paleolithic diet peddlers will go around telling you to eat Beef. This blogger even has a whole site full of recipes where he has printed instructions on how to prepare all kinds of dishes with beef in it. — Now which Paleolithic man was it, remind me now, that wrangled Black-Angus cows fifty-thousand years ago, in Africa? Was it “Og the caveman” who wore australopithecine cowboy boots in Africa? (Hardly) – Guess what. Beef is not Paleolithic:

    “British and European cattle like Angus, Hereford, Charolais and Simmental belong to the tarus species.” “Many contemporary cattle breeds are the result of genetic breeding and crossing two or more older breeds. Most of the new breeds originating in the United States.” “It is believed they were probably first domesticated in Europe and Asia about 8500 years ago.”

    So paleolithic diet afficionados will go around claiming that their diet “scientifically” shows what paleo man ate and telling you not to eat things that arose less than 10,000 years ago, and then turn around and be touting recipes with steak in it, and things like grassfed beef. – ANYONE found recommending eating beef is a paleohypocrite and has just debunked themselves.

    Here, take a look at his very own words, let’s take a look at his very own meat-based logic and utilize his own beliefs and see where it leads…

    Ok, according to his own “Caveman Logic”: IF mankind was “designed” to eat it, it’d be ok to eat. However he’s going to be entrapped inside his own logical fallacy here. So he went and found a book, by Kaayla T Daniel, a known debunked individual, which he read and now believes soy is bad(false), and then contends that if we were “designed” to eat it, it wouldn’t cause any problems. Then he turns around and tells you to eat meat. Ok, now let’s apply his own words to the assertion that he just wrote:

    If we were “designed” to ingest meat, why then does it lead to death, sickness, and Cancer? Hmm?

    HIS OWN LOGIC applied to his own words–> “The very fact that thousands of people [Die, from ingesting red meat] and it may cause so many health problems [throat cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, heart disease, and increased risk of mortality and human death.] If homo sapiens were designed to eat [meat], then it wouldn’t have the [human carcinogenic, infectious, and disease-ridden] properties that it has and people would be able to eat it.” -Uh oh, meat doesn’t pass the smell test. His own words just contradicted his own meat-based logic.

    Apparently, according to the paleo afficionado, if something causes an allergy it’s HORRIBLE and to be CONDEMNED AS EVIL. It’s the devil food! (Remember, he has actually bought in to calling it “evil”)But hey, if it fits what he wants to believe (he wants to believe he can eat meat and its ok) then nevermind the Science that proves its bad, but believe a whole bunch of trumped up pseudo-science if it says its good, and believe a bunch of scientific-looking but weak and unsubstantiated beliefs saying what hominids ate derived from guesses about skeletal bones which cannot be proven. As long as its the part that fits what he wants to believe he can eat, then it’s ok even if it results in cases of throat cancer, rectal cancer, heart failure, mortality and human death. We’re “designed” to eat that apparently.

    LOOK AT THE MEDICAL SCIENCE…

    1. Eating Red And Processed Meat Associated With Increased Risk Of Death – SCIENCEDAILY
    “March 24, 2009 — Individuals who eat more red meat and processed meat appear to have a modestly increased risk of death from all causes and also from cancer.”

    2. Dietary Fat Linked To Pancreatic Cancer – SCIENCE
    “June 27, 2009 — High intake of dietary fats from red meat and dairy products was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer.”

    3. Vegetable Diet May Reduce Risk Of Prostate Cancer – SCIENCE DAILY
    “June 4, 2009 — Certain modifications in diet have a beneficial effect on the prevention of prostate cancer. Results suggest that a diet low in fat and low in red meat but high in fruits and vegetables is beneficial”

    4. Charred Meat May Increase Risk Of Pancreatic Cancer – SCIENCE
    “April 22, 2009 — Meat cooked at high temperatures to the point of burning and charring may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer”

    5. Diet Affects Diversity Of Microbes In Human Gut, And In Turn, Colon Cancer Risk – SCIENCE DAILY
    “April 2, 2009 — A typical Western diet, rich in meat and fats and low in complex carbohydrates, is a recipe for colon cancer”

    6. Retail Meat Linked to Urinary Tract Infections: Strong New Evidence – SCIENCE DAILY
    January 21, 2010 — Chicken sold in supermarkets, restaurants and other outlets may place young women at risk of urinary tract infections, researchers have discovered.

    7. Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters – THE GUARDIAN

    Note! You cannot say “everything causes cancer” that line is debunked, because as you see here, vegan & vegetarian items actually reduce it.

    8. Diet rich in red meat doubles breast cancer risk | UK news

    9. BBC NEWS | Health | Red meat cancer risk
    “Eating lots of red meat is linked with DNA damage which raises the risk of bowel cancer”

    10. ACS :: Eating Lots of Red Meat Linked to Colon Cancer – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
    “People who eat a lot of red meat or processed meats may be raising their risk for colon cancer.” -American Cancer Society

    11. Red meat increases risk of death from cancer – The Globe and Mail
    “In contrast, those who ate less red meat have a decreased risk of dying, and in particular of dying from cancer”

    Keep in mind.. This also applies to UNPROCESSED meat. Watch for anyone trying to get out of it trying to use claims of unprocessed meat or grassfed meat to skirt the issues, this is false and these also lead to damage to human health.

    So Witness the above SCIENCE, then look at what Mr. Paleo anthropologist’s diet recommendation:

    Layne Pennel:”Eat some meat.”-Believe in the Paleolithic Diet
    Medical Fact: “Eating Red And Processed Meat Associated With Increased Risk Of Human Death”

    As someone once said, if you were designed for eating it, it wouldn’t lead to death and cancer now would it. Apparently the real Paleolithic diet is vegetarian.

  • FACTCHECK COMMISSION

    The Active Links:

    MEDICAL SCIENCE…

    1. Eating Red And Processed Meat Associated With Increased Risk Of Death – SCIENCEDAILY
    “March 24, 2009 — Individuals who eat more red meat and processed meat appear to have a modestly increased risk of death from all causes and also from cancer.”

    2. Dietary Fat Linked To Pancreatic Cancer – SCIENCE
    “June 27, 2009 — High intake of dietary fats from red meat and dairy products was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer.”

    3. Vegetable Diet May Reduce Risk Of Prostate Cancer – SCIENCE DAILY
    “June 4, 2009 — Certain modifications in diet have a beneficial effect on the prevention of prostate cancer. Results suggest that a diet low in fat and low in red meat but high in fruits and vegetables is beneficial”

    4. Charred Meat May Increase Risk Of Pancreatic Cancer – SCIENCE
    “April 22, 2009 — Meat cooked at high temperatures to the point of burning and charring may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer”

    5. Diet Affects Diversity Of Microbes In Human Gut, And In Turn, Colon Cancer Risk – SCIENCE DAILY
    “April 2, 2009 — A typical Western diet, rich in meat and fats and low in complex carbohydrates, is a recipe for colon cancer”

    6. Retail Meat Linked to Urinary Tract Infections: Strong New Evidence – SCIENCE DAILY
    January 21, 2010 — Chicken sold in supermarkets, restaurants and other outlets may place young women at risk of urinary tract infections, researchers have discovered.

    7. Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters – THE GUARDIAN

    Note! You cannot say “everything causes cancer” that line is debunked, because as you see here, vegan & vegetarian items actually reduce it.

    8. Diet rich in red meat doubles breast cancer risk | UK news

    9. BBC NEWS | Health | Red meat cancer risk
    “Eating lots of red meat is linked with DNA damage which raises the risk of bowel cancer”

    10. ACS :: Eating Lots of Red Meat Linked to Colon Cancer – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
    “People who eat a lot of red meat or processed meats may be raising their risk for colon cancer.” -American Cancer Society

    11. Red meat increases risk of death from cancer – The Globe and Mail
    “In contrast, those who ate less red meat have a decreased risk of dying, and in particular of dying from cancer”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    We comments editors do vet all URLs to make sure they don’t link to malicious sites. Commenters who deliberately post spam links, or worse, are banned immediately.

    Also, as far as I’m aware, any browser worth its salt will display the URL at the bottom of the screen when you point your mouse at it without clicking. I think the average Blogcritics denizen is Internet-savvy enough to spot a dodgy link.

    Dr Dreadful
    Assistant Comments Editor

  • Wil Bloodworth

    Everyone one of those “bullet points” are clearly flawed…

    #1: They did not mention what ELSE they were eating besides red meat.

    #2: … and dairy products…!

    #3: Veg diet MAY reduce… but they’re not sure!

    #4: Charred meat… Paleo does not advise charring meat. Quite the contrary because of the oxidative damage to the cells.

    #5: Typical Western diet… is not Paleo.

    #6: Retail meat… really?! Is this the best “evidence” you can drag up?!

    #7: Cancers did not even exist until we started eating grains. Find evidence that cancers existed in any substantial amount before, say, 2500 years ago.

    #8: Again… uncontrolled reporting guesses at what could possibly cause breast cancer.

    #9: Eating LOTS of red meat is linked with DNA damage. Paleo doesn’t advocate eating LOTS of any kind of meat.

    #10: A ‘link’ doesn’t prove anything conclusively.

    #11: Again, what else were they eating besides red meat… uncontrolled reporting of general populations proves nothing.

    How about some REAL double-blind studies by reputable scientists instead of these worthless links you provided!

    Open your mind and read the science. It’s really not that difficult if you give it a try. Obviously, you’ve already made up your mind and don’t want to learn anything because then you would have to admit that you could potentially be wrong. It’s sad really.

    #10:

  • berta

    I think allergies exist simply because of weak immune systems due to all the vaccines, environmental toxins, tainted foods, cell phones, radiation, stress and medications etc….