There is a saying: “If you saw it on the Internet than it must be true!”
That is obviously sarcasm. There is a ton of BS on the Internet. Remember a few months ago when everyone though Morgan Freeman passed away due to some spam on Facebook?
But what if you read something about health on a website like www.usnews.com? Just looking at the site it looks pretty trustworthy and professional. Sort of looks like CNN.com or any of the other major news sites, doesn’t it? It is the sort of website that people read and immediately believe and take it for fact.
Here is an entry about the Paleo diet from health.usnews.com. Take a bit and read it. If you know anything about the Paleo diet it will basically make you sick. From what I gather reading that “article” is that the author read Robb Wolf’s The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet and that was the extent of his or her research.
I love Robb’s book, it is awesome. Talks in layman’s terms for the most part while also touching on the science portion. I don’t recall the book diving into numerous test studies but if you are going to put together an article on the Paleo diet you should do a bit more research. Pick up It Starts with Food and then wonder if there are scientific facts to back up the theory.
Under the header “Will you lose weight?” the initial response is “No way to tell”. In just searching on Google: one, two, three and four. If that isn’t enough how about a book with 50 stories of success in following the Paleo diet? There is plenty of evidence of people losing weight following Paleo and many of them do little to no exercise.
The article then asks if it can help control diabetes and essentially assumes that the only way to control diabetes is through your weight. It doesn’t talk about insulin responses and how cutting out highly processed grains will help your body control insulin, it just talks about weight. And if the article already assumes that the Paleo diet cannot help you lose weight then it must not be able to help with diabetes either.
“Are there health risks?” To this the article says that if you cut out dairy and legumes you could miss out on “a lot of nutrients”. What, exactly, are those nutrients? Not really selling me here on that you know what you are writing about. Calcium because of the lack of milk? How about we eat kale and spinach and get much more calcium and other vitamins without throwing our intestinal track for a loop. And, what exactly do legumes provide in terms of nutrition? The human body cannot process legumes and that is why some people refer to them as “free food” – they just pass right through humans. There is nothing gained from eating legumes.
Then the article digs into if the Paleo diet conforms to acceptable guidelines. Oh boy! If we don’t follow the basic food pyramid that has been shoved down our throats, literally, for years and years by the government who subsides the grain producing agriculture then it must be wrong! The government has its hands down the big-industry-grain-loving pants and vice versa. Of course the government is going to say you should eat your Wheaties and Cheerios and Corn Flakes and Oatmeal, but what is NEVER discussed is what Gluten does to the human body. How come Gluten is always overlooked? How is this not becoming more widely known? Gluten is bad for you, HORRIBLE for you. But according to the government and this article a diet that cuts out highly processed grains is bad for you.
And my last point, because I have already spent too many words on this pile of crap, is under “How easy is it to follow”. In that first sentence you can already tell that the author wrote the story under bias. When the author throws out the “breadless sandwiches” comment you know he or she already didn’t like the idea of giving up their Subway when they wrote the story.
You cannot always believe what you read on the Internet. The next time someone posts on Facebook something along the lines “If you do not repost this then I know you don’t love puppies” you should start to wonder how intelligent that “friend” is on Facebook that they fell for the new wave of spam.
And if you want a much, much better rebuttal to this pile of dog poo you can get it here. Robb Wolf, as usual, does it a lot better than I.