Extracts from:
http://localhost.ucfly.com:8010/reformat/reformat/reformat.php?url=http%3A//www.catalystathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinDebate.pdf&cookie=&referer=&ln=en_US
*************
Protein Debate by
.
Loren Cordain, PhD T. Colin Campbell, PhD
*************
Contents
.
The Evolutionary Basis for the Therapeutic Effects of High Protein Diets
Loren Cordain, PhD
Professor, Department of Health & Exercise Science, Colorado State University, author of The Paleo Diet.
.
How Much Protein is Needed?
T. Colin Campbell, PhD. Campbell, Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, author of The China Study.
************
Commentary by Loren Cordain, Phd
.
The study of human nutrition remains an immature science because it lacks a universally acknowledged unifying paradigm (11). Without an overarching and guiding template, it is not surprising that there is such seeming chaos, disagreement and confusion in the discipline. The renowned Russian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) said, ※Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution§ (12). Indeed, nothing in nutrition seems to make sense because most nutritionists have little or no formal training in evolutionary theory, much less human evolution. Nutritionists face the same problem as anyone who is not using an evolutionary model to evaluate biology: fragmented information and no coherent way to interpret the data. All human nutritional requirements like those of all living organisms are ultimately genetically determined. Most nutritionists are aware of this basic concept; what they have little appreciation for is the process (natural selection) which uniquely shaped our species＊ nutritional requirements. By carefully examining the ancient environment under which our genome arose, it is possible to gain insight into our present day nutritional requirements and the range of foods and diets to which we are genetically adapted via natural selection (13-16). This insight can then be employed as a template to organize and make sense out of experimental and epidemiological studies of human biology and nutrition...
*************
Commentary by T. Colin Campbell
.
My critique of Professor Loren Cordain＊s proposition almost entirely depends on my philosophy of nutrition. It is clearly different from that of Cordain＊s understanding of this discipline. He mocks the science of nutrition as if it has little or nothing to offer. I believe that it has much to offer even though its essence mostly remains hidden. He says that nutritional science is a ※newly established discipline§, that it ※is a highly fractionated, contentious eld with constantly changing viewpoints§, that it ※remains an immature science§ and ※that there is such seeming chaos, disagreement and confusion§. He then suggests ※nothing in nutrition seems to make sense because most nutritionists have little or no formal training in evolutionary theory§. He apparently believes that only paleontologists and archeologists have a crystal ball as to what is nutrition and, more specically, how much protein should be consumed. He has thrown down a challenging gauntlet, thus leaving me no option but to explain what I believe nutrition to be〞before I tackle the protein requirement question. While I agree that there is enormous confusion, both in the professional and lay communities, I disagree that nutrition is a relatively ※new§ science and that hypotheses about nutrition must pass a test set by archeologists before they can be considered reliable. I agree that nutrition hypotheses should be consistent with our evolutionary past, but having to pass an archeologist＊s ＆smell＊ test is too restrictive based on the evidence presented in Cordain＊s paper. Protein was discovered in 1839, fat and energy were being discussed in the mid 1800s and amino acids were known to be components of protein in the late 1800s. I suggest that nutrition as a science predates the well-known disciplines of genetics, bacteriology, virology, biochemistry, pharmacology, immunology and molecular biology, to name only a few. Is it possible that Cordain considers nutrition to be a ※new§ science because it is new to him? Is it so confusing to him because he knows so little about the science? Being confused about the concept of nutrition is a serious matter. It is real〞both inside and outside of the eld. Many factors contribute to this confusion. In addition to explanations like ignorance, economic pressures and food preference biases, I believe that there is a more fundamental issue that underlies each of these explanations, this being the way we think about scientic investigation itself. More specically, it concerns the role that precision, as a concept, plays in research. Ever since the Renaissance, scientic investigation has emphasized this concept when gathering empirical evidence. Physical measurements must be precise, substances and events must be precisely characterized physically and chemically, and hypotheses have more value if they are precisely focused (especially if one expects to compete for research funding). Even to question this concept of precision is scientic heresy to many scientists. Making use of precise measurements is essential
for the research and development (R&D) of complex physical technologies like automobiles, space shuttles, telephones, and computers. When developing these complex physical products, we precisely make the component parts then precisely assemble them into complex products. We must be mindful of precision and I am delighted for that...
