Sun, Jul-18-21, 10:43
|
 |
|
|
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 212/179/160
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Rural Maine
|
|
I read the same newsletter from Dr. Eades. He does go on to say that the meticulous studies were all done on insects. The only study done on humans was not very scientific (I've taken just a few of the pertinent paragraphs to illustrate the point):
Quote:
|
Turns out the undergraduate had just the setup they had been looking for to run their study. Her family had a Swiss chalet in an isolated valley in the Alps. The plan was for the undergraduate to recruit a group of ten friends and family and have them all gather at the remote chalet for a week of experimentation "without caffeine, alcohol, or chocolate, to become human locusts."
|
Quote:
|
A year or so later, the authors went to a retreat where they finally crunched the data from the undergraduate experiment, and it happened to match their insect data perfectly. So, as they describe it, they were then ready to proclaim their hypothesis to the world.
|
Quote:
Right after their discussion of the undergraduate study, they mention that it wasn't Grade A work to have a small group of students do a study like this. In fact, they said it "was just a suggestion rather than an answer." And they were right.
But throughout the rest of the book they would mention their meticulously done insect experiments and then, in the same breath, mention how those results were borne out in their human experiments. By the time one is halfway through the book, it appears that the human study--sort of loosely conducted by an undergrad and her friends on vacation--was the equivalent in rigor as all the insect work.
The authors run through a number of experiments they and others have done in diverse creatures. They discover their notions of the protein-leverage hypothesis hold true in these other animals, including a number of monkeys. But not so in gorillas, which apparently are not followers of the protein-leverage hypothesis. After discussing how gorilla dietary behavior was different, they drop this jewel of a sentence:
We now knew that different primates differed in their responses to variations in dietary balance in the wild--spider monkeys were like humans, and gorillas were not.
Note the mention of humans. Casually tossed off as if they had been intensively studied, when what they're referring to is the undergraduate vacation experiment.
Later on the authors discuss how gorillas are more like predators, which do not apparently follow the rules of the protein-leverage hypothesis. I, myself, think humans would be more like predators, the findings of the undergrad study be damned.
|
I'm not disagreeing with the protein leverage hypothesis. In fact, it makes total sense to me, especially in light of my own experiences. Just providing more of the story. |
Linear Mode
