In accordance with the general fact that “calories in—calories out” is complete bullshit, I’ve had to learn that sweet things are not their caloric content, they are pharmaceutical weight-gain pills with effects far in excess of their stated caloric content. So no, I wouldn’t be able to eat a triple chocolate muffin, or chocolate cake, or a donut, etcetera. But yes, when I still believed the bullshit and thought the cost was just the stated caloric content, I sometimes didn’t resist.
I fully expect that less than 0.1% of mathematicians are working on math anywhere near as important as starting a chain of paleo coffee shops. What are you working on?
Fluid dynamics. Considering jumping over to computational neuroscience.
I’ve put some serious thought into a paleo coffee shop. It’s definitely on my list of potential extra-academic endeavors if I end up leaving my ivory tower.
A fast search suggests that there aren’t any paleo restaurants, and possibly not even paleo sections on menus, so there might just be a business opportunity.
There isn’t really a rigorous definition of the diet. One guideline some people use is that you shouldn’t eat anything you wouldn’t eat raw, which excludes beans. Coffee beans aren’t actually beans though. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people consider coffee not paleo, but there are big names in the paleo scene that drink coffee (Kurt Harris, Art de Vany).
Really, I would say paleo is more a philosophy for how to go about honing in on a diet, rather than a particular diet in and of itself. There are hard lines, like chocolate muffins. I don’t think coffee is close to that line though.
You’re right, the guideline is not too well worded. You should probably replace “what you wouldn’t eat raw” with “what would be toxic to eat raw”.
Meat is edible raw. There’s nothing inherently toxic about uncooked meat. Many other foods require cooking to diminish their toxicity (potatoes, grains, legumes). There’s definitely concern about parasites in raw meat, but parasites are not an inherent quality of the meat itself.
There’s actually a whole raw paleo sub-subculture. I wouldn’t recommend it personally, and I’m not keen to try it myself, but it’s there.
I think it’s likely humans are evolved to eat cooked food. The guideline don’t eat anything you wouldn’t eat raw isn’t intended to dissuade people to not eat cooked food, but rather to serve as a heuristic for foods that were probably less commonly eaten by our ancestors. It’s unclear to me how accurate the heuristic is. A big counterexample is tubers. Tubers are widely eaten by modern hunter-gatherers and are toxic when uncooked.
Is this based on taubes or is there more to support it? I found his demolition of calories in calories out fairly convincing but wasn’t wholly convinced by his carb-demonizing
In what way do you consider “calories in—calories out” complete bullshit? (My guess as to your answer: knock-on effects w.r.t. a Seth-Roberts-style set point of some kind.)
Probably in the same sense that people mean, under generous interpretations, when they say “The Laffer Curve is bullshit”—which is to say, it’s technically true, but not a relevant insight for this part of the problem space, given more significant factors in success.
Sure. I’m curious about what EY sees as the specific “more significant factors in [why sweet things are obstacles to] success [in excess of their stated calories]”.
Oh, okay. Probably should have known I couldn’t provide what you were looking for, but I wanted to get in a jab at confused critiques of the Laffer Curve and confused applications of conservation of energy to weight loss. :-)
In accordance with the general fact that “calories in—calories out” is complete bullshit, I’ve had to learn that sweet things are not their caloric content, they are pharmaceutical weight-gain pills with effects far in excess of their stated caloric content. So no, I wouldn’t be able to eat a triple chocolate muffin, or chocolate cake, or a donut, etcetera. But yes, when I still believed the bullshit and thought the cost was just the stated caloric content, I sometimes didn’t resist.
Luckily a juicy porterhouse steak is a nice stand-in for a triple chocolate muffin. Unfortunately they don’t tend to sell them at coffee shops.
Perhaps I’ll end my career as a mathematician to start a paleo coffee shop.
I fully expect that less than 0.1% of mathematicians are working on math anywhere near as important as starting a chain of paleo coffee shops. What are you working on?
Fluid dynamics. Considering jumping over to computational neuroscience.
I’ve put some serious thought into a paleo coffee shop. It’s definitely on my list of potential extra-academic endeavors if I end up leaving my ivory tower.
A fast search suggests that there aren’t any paleo restaurants, and possibly not even paleo sections on menus, so there might just be a business opportunity.
Is coffee in the paleo diet?
There isn’t really a rigorous definition of the diet. One guideline some people use is that you shouldn’t eat anything you wouldn’t eat raw, which excludes beans. Coffee beans aren’t actually beans though. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people consider coffee not paleo, but there are big names in the paleo scene that drink coffee (Kurt Harris, Art de Vany).
Really, I would say paleo is more a philosophy for how to go about honing in on a diet, rather than a particular diet in and of itself. There are hard lines, like chocolate muffins. I don’t think coffee is close to that line though.
That surprises me. The paleo diet I know includes meat, which you should cook in order to kill parasites.
You’re right, the guideline is not too well worded. You should probably replace “what you wouldn’t eat raw” with “what would be toxic to eat raw”.
Meat is edible raw. There’s nothing inherently toxic about uncooked meat. Many other foods require cooking to diminish their toxicity (potatoes, grains, legumes). There’s definitely concern about parasites in raw meat, but parasites are not an inherent quality of the meat itself.
There’s actually a whole raw paleo sub-subculture. I wouldn’t recommend it personally, and I’m not keen to try it myself, but it’s there.
There’s also a theory that the development of cooking was responsible for the evolutionary Great Leap Forward.
I think it’s likely humans are evolved to eat cooked food. The guideline don’t eat anything you wouldn’t eat raw isn’t intended to dissuade people to not eat cooked food, but rather to serve as a heuristic for foods that were probably less commonly eaten by our ancestors. It’s unclear to me how accurate the heuristic is. A big counterexample is tubers. Tubers are widely eaten by modern hunter-gatherers and are toxic when uncooked.
Tea might be even if coffee isn’t.
Is this based on taubes or is there more to support it? I found his demolition of calories in calories out fairly convincing but wasn’t wholly convinced by his carb-demonizing
In what way do you consider “calories in—calories out” complete bullshit? (My guess as to your answer: knock-on effects w.r.t. a Seth-Roberts-style set point of some kind.)
Probably in the same sense that people mean, under generous interpretations, when they say “The Laffer Curve is bullshit”—which is to say, it’s technically true, but not a relevant insight for this part of the problem space, given more significant factors in success.
Sure. I’m curious about what EY sees as the specific “more significant factors in [why sweet things are obstacles to] success [in excess of their stated calories]”.
Oh, okay. Probably should have known I couldn’t provide what you were looking for, but I wanted to get in a jab at confused critiques of the Laffer Curve and confused applications of conservation of energy to weight loss. :-)