i don’t think i was logically implying that since glucose feeds cancer, and cancer doesn’t exist in non-western civilizations, then low-carbing prevents cancer. i would argue that since glucose feeds cancer, and cancer doesn’t exist in non-western civilizations, then their coincident lack of glucose would lend credence to the hypothesis that low-carbing prevents cancer. maybe i’m still committing a logical fallacy. in which case, i stand corrected. however, i think you understand what my point is. at least, i hope so. haha.

5. here is a great study that links shaving in men to heart disease! haha. another great example of how flawed observational studies are.

that was my only point. observational studies are almost worthless, in the field of health.

tom naughton gives a great speech on youtube about it.

6. this is complex, because of our population and because we’ve stopped being nomads. once upon a time, we didn’t have factory farms, but our demand for meat drove us to them. does that mean we need to cut our consumption of meat? i would strongly argue “no”.

sadly, i can’t offer an alternative, besides the dream of all of us having our own local butcher and local grass-fed beef source. but, i don’t think the fact that the dream seems unattainable means we should completely disregard our ancestral diet.

perhaps, some day, we’ll develop a way to grow 100% pure beef in a lab? or, maybe, we can turn iowa’s many fields of corn into cow pastures? the possibilities are limitless.

again, it’s this topic that is the most complex and the least objective. as such, i try to only remind people of the circle of life, and not try to argue it any further, as arguing any further seems to always come off as condoning factory farming and the like. le sigh.

Having said that, I feel the need to question your first point, and the way you frame your cancer argument. First of all, “Cancer cells feed on glucose.” My understanding of cancerous cells is that they begin as normal human cells, becoming cancerous when they are able to amass several mutations that allow them to grow unrestricted, overriding the body’s regulatory functions. So to say cancer cells feed on glucose, is to say human cells feed on glucose. Seems a bit misleading. On top of that saying, “cancer doesn’t exist in non-westernized societies.” is about as meaningful and precise as saying, wholesome natural food is good for you. Aside from not using precise language about what it means to be “non-westernized” you seem to be setting up the same ‘posthoc ergo proper hoc’ argument that you are telling us to avoid. Specifically, “cancer cells feed on glucose,” “cancer doesn’t exist in non-westernized societies,” Therefore a diet low in carbohydrate (glucose) must account for the non existence of cancer in these societies. Correlation does not equal causation right?

I am also not a fan of point number five, in few sentences you have dismissed any science that does not confirm you conclusion as “bad science”. The I’m right, thery’re wrong vibe is a big turn off.

To point six, I have always found the ‘a lion eats a gazelle without regard to the gazelle’s feelings’ argument to be an unfair comparison. A lion also doesn’t farm gazelle. Doesn’t subject them to a brief life filled with cruelty and fear. The lion eats when it needs to in order to survive. Your right our ability to empathize with other life forms is part of what makes us human. When we lose that….

This video kind of gives me nightmares.