I find it very reassuring when a reader articulates my postion for me better than I do.
Here is reader Ben responding to Greg, who I think could fairly be described as in the "you need to prove a high carb macronutrient ratio is bad" camp.
Greg-
Your description of a healthy carb is "one that contains nutrients" (sic), a la Weston Price.
That does not mean carbs are nutritious, it means nutrients are nutritious. As it stands, there is no evidence that carbs have a uniquely healthful contribution to a diet, as Taubes and others have argued. If I understand the former's position, he would argue that the absence of copious amounts of sugar, refined gluten grains or white rice (and fructose, probably) are the reasons the Kitavans are not disease-ridden, at least on the surface. This doesn't mean, however, that their diet is optimal or that those 60% carbs are beneficial -- ONLY that they are tolerated to the extent that they don't cause obesity.
Your two theories, to these eyes, appear to only say that perhaps only some carbs cause disease and the corollary point is that maybe some don't. This is merely a negative distinction: it has yet to be proven that carbs are needed at all in the diet and most anthropological and bio-chemical evidence suggests otherwise. The question is not WHETHER OR NOT a person can (superficially) tolerate more carbs under certain ethnographically-described scenarios, but whether that very scenario actually serves as reasonable scientific evidence that such a diet (or a similarly-constructed diet) be recommended to outsiders. There must be a scientific foundation for a claim that a particular diet is advantageous and as there is no strong evidence that the addition of 60% starchy carbs is in itself healthful and is, at best, likely a superfluity in an otherwise healthy lifestyle, the Kitavans example shouldn't serve as justification that the addition of said carbs for the rest of us will have a nutritional benefit.
Lastly, you claim that our knowledge of human body is flawed and, thus, all suppositions derived from biochemical analysis are in danger of being flawed. This argument is a canard, as no science-of-nutrition discoveries can take place in vacuum. It appears you are suggesting that the best alternative is to observe and emulate. M. Eades has rigorously argued that epidemiology/observation has no relevance to causality, so what dimensions of the "native" lifestyle are best emulated? The lack of sugar and flour? The increased amount of starchy tubers? Living in a jungle? As most of Price's evidence reveals that "diseases of civilization" are perpetuated exclusively by certain carb heavy foods in the diet, and this evidence correlates with a vast ocean of other scientific research, I'll take the negative stance that carbs are guilty until proven innocent (or necessary!).
Very well put, Ben.
You have identified the problem with putting ethnology before medical science. It is the same problem with modern economics. Not enough careful thinking before looking at the data. WAPF, with many of its positions, ignores very sophisticated medical knowledge accumulated since Price's time, in favor of ethnology. The same argument about how you cannot just study modern folks on the SAD applies to modern-era HG stragglers.
You should study both groups from within a theoretical framework informed by modern medical bioscience. The "we don't know anything about human biochemistry" is a self sulfilling prophecy when you are too tilted in the empirical direction. You must study it to learn it, or you will have ideas like the only problem with cigarettes is the "artificial" chemicals and not the perfectly natural ones that are poisonous!
Your description of a healthy carb is "one that contains nutrients" (sic), a la Weston Price.
That does not mean carbs are nutritious, it means nutrients are nutritious. As it stands, there is no evidence that carbs have a uniquely healthful contribution to a diet, as Taubes and others have argued. If I understand the former's position, he would argue that the absence of copious amounts of sugar, refined gluten grains or white rice (and fructose, probably) are the reasons the Kitavans are not disease-ridden, at least on the surface. This doesn't mean, however, that their diet is optimal or that those 60% carbs are beneficial -- ONLY that they are tolerated to the extent that they don't cause obesity.
Your two theories, to these eyes, appear to only say that perhaps only some carbs cause disease and the corollary point is that maybe some don't. This is merely a negative distinction: it has yet to be proven that carbs are needed at all in the diet and most anthropological and bio-chemical evidence suggests otherwise. The question is not WHETHER OR NOT a person can (superficially) tolerate more carbs under certain ethnographically-described scenarios, but whether that very scenario actually serves as reasonable scientific evidence that such a diet (or a similarly-constructed diet) be recommended to outsiders. There must be a scientific foundation for a claim that a particular diet is advantageous and as there is no strong evidence that the addition of 60% starchy carbs is in itself healthful and is, at best, likely a superfluity in an otherwise healthy lifestyle, the Kitavans example shouldn't serve as justification that the addition of said carbs for the rest of us will have a nutritional benefit.
Lastly, you claim that our knowledge of human body is flawed and, thus, all suppositions derived from biochemical analysis are in danger of being flawed. This argument is a canard, as no science-of-nutrition discoveries can take place in vacuum. It appears you are suggesting that the best alternative is to observe and emulate. M. Eades has rigorously argued that epidemiology/observation has no relevance to causality, so what dimensions of the "native" lifestyle are best emulated? The lack of sugar and flour? The increased amount of starchy tubers? Living in a jungle? As most of Price's evidence reveals that "diseases of civilization" are perpetuated exclusively by certain carb heavy foods in the diet, and this evidence correlates with a vast ocean of other scientific research, I'll take the negative stance that carbs are guilty until proven innocent (or necessary!).
Very well put, Ben.
You have identified the problem with putting ethnology before medical science. It is the same problem with modern economics. Not enough careful thinking before looking at the data. WAPF, with many of its positions, ignores very sophisticated medical knowledge accumulated since Price's time, in favor of ethnology. The same argument about how you cannot just study modern folks on the SAD applies to modern-era HG stragglers.
You should study both groups from within a theoretical framework informed by modern medical bioscience. The "we don't know anything about human biochemistry" is a self sulfilling prophecy when you are too tilted in the empirical direction. You must study it to learn it, or you will have ideas like the only problem with cigarettes is the "artificial" chemicals and not the perfectly natural ones that are poisonous!