Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: All our papers are written from scratch by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.
In CS1, you are taking on the perspective of one of four siblings in a family (Tommy, Jenny, Hannah, or Peter), all of whom have opinions based upon their academic coursework regarding whether their mother should go on a Paleo diet. You will work with the other students playing that same sibling in order to prepare for our in-class case study day, which will have you return to your regular group such that all four siblings are represented at a “dinner table” conversation. You will also discuss whether being a high-income, low-income, or cardiovascular disease risk family would change your perspective on this matter.
NEED HELP WRITING AN ESSAY
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your project.
Get Help Now!Your first job is to work with your group to divide up the reading (sources) relevant to your sibling character. Read the articles assigned to you (as well as the articles noted for all students), and (with the exception of those read by all), post 2-4 sentence summaries of the major points on a google doc specific to your sibling group (there will be a Hannah doc, a Jenny doc, etc). Please give me and the TA access to your doc. By the time we engage in the dinner table conversation, you should be completely comfortable with the perspective of your character and, where relevant, with how your character would view the alternate income and disease conditions mentioned in the previous paragraph.
During your dinner table conversation, all four siblings will have the opportunity to present their unique perspectives. In all likelihood, you’ll want to do this by first taking turns speaking, then moving into a round table discussion. You may want to take notes during this discussion, as you will not be familiar with the perspectives of the other siblings, though if everyone has kept a really good google doc going with their sibling groups, this won’t be necessary.. Your “family” will then come up with a consensus for “Mom” with regard to whether she should use a Paleo diet (you can also treat this as a continuum; perhaps you’ll decide some aspects of the diet are good, and others are not good or are unnecessary).
You will then write a paper (I hate page limits, but it’s hard to imagine that you could do this well in less than 8-10 double-spaced pages of 12 point font…and don’t do anything funny with the margins, because that wastes paper and annoys us[1]) in which you will do the following:
- Summarize what you think Mom should do. Include the major points made by each sibling, as well as how variations in health or socioeconomic scenarios might affect your family’s decision-making. Note that if you completely disagreed with one of your sibling’s takes on the research s/he was responsible for, it’s ok to present support for your views as opposed to simply presenting what your group decided. Cite sources to support the major points made (you can ask each sibling to provide evidence for their points; you need not have read the research presented by other siblings in order to cite it as something they cited[2]). In the interest of saving time during your dinner table discussion, please get references for points made from the google doc rather than in class.
- If you disagreed with the consensus of your “family,” justify your position using research and/or sources that you personally have read.
- Provide a formal references section. I don’t care how you format your citations; footnotes, endnotes, in-text…MLA, Chicago, APA…do whatever makes you happy. Just pick a style and stick with it. There are even auto-formatters out there on the web for citations; if you don’t know about them, it’s almost guaranteed one of your classmates does, so ask…they make life so much easier! With regard to number of references, a very quick and dirty rule of thumb for a paper in a science class is one reference for each page (a 10-page paper would have 10 sources). I don’t get excited about counting references; rather, we want to see that you have used crediblescientific sources everywhere that it’s appropriate to do so, and have avoided making statements of scientific fact[3] without citing a source.
- Try to avoid quoting sources, in general. Paraphrase (restate in your own words), making sure that you UNDERSTAND what you’re paraphrasing. Also, analyze. That is, don’t just tell us what the paper said…tell us why it’s relevant to the point you’re trying to make.
Papers are due on the indicated date. Late papers are penalized at 10% per 24-hour period. Late papers may be submitted by email for the purposes of a time stamp to stop late penalties from continuing to accrue, but cannot be graded until we get a hard copy. Please note that if any changes are made to a late paper between email submission and hard copy submission, the paper will be penalized based upon when the hard copy was handed in.
Note that you do not need to create a “scenario” for your family, as this student’s group did. They found it fun to do so, and it was fun for me to read, but it did not influence the grade. You also need not incorporate humor. In fact, I generally discourage it, simply because it’s quite an advanced technique in science writing. This student was/is an experienced writer who enjoyed incorporating some humor in order to make points. This is a fun technique, and done well, it makes for very enjoyable reading. It is also VERY hard to do, and even professional scientists generally avoid it, as, if done wrong, it completely distracts from your points and undermines the message. If you are not 100% sure you know how to use humor to good effect in scientific writing, please avoid it!
Please note that this is an exceptional paper, both in terms of the depth of research and level of writing. Please don’t be frightened: I am not allowing this paper to “set the bar” for expectations of you. That said, you should bear in mind that this case study represents a significant portion of your course grade, and as such, your prep work and paper should represent a solid portion of the effort and time you put into this class.
Do:
1) Write in passive voice (any sentence to which you can append “by zombies” without sounding as though you’re insane is passive voice) and in 3rd person (no “I,” “we,” “me,” or “you”). You’ll note that this paper did not use 3rd person or passive voice exclusively; as with humor, the voice/person used in this paper is a very advanced technique that can easily go very badly for a less-experienced writer. If you’re not absolutely certain of what you’re doing, stick with dispassionate science-speak for this project.
2) Cite sources for all major points you make
3) Paraphrase and analyze sources
4) Check grammar and spelling
5) Format your references in a reasonable manner, in a style of your choice
6) Ask if you have questions!
Do not:
1) Rely upon anecdote or personal experience
2) Use non-scientific sources
3) Form conclusions that are not supported by your research and/or that contradict your research (e.g., don’t spend 7 pages debunking the Paleo diet [if that’s what you end up doing] and then tell me in your “wealthy family” scenario that they might as well use it, because they can afford it).
4) Turn in work that has not been meticulously edited for grammar and sentence structure. You have peers, we have an excellent writing center on campus, and you can read over your own work: avail yourself of at least one of these.
5) Ignore sustainability: regardless of whether you decide the Paleo diet is a good idea or a bad one, nutritionally-speaking, the impact of a diet on society (via the environment) is a critical consideration in this paper.
6) Ask us to pre-grade papers. If you have specific questions, the TA and I are here to help. We cannot, however, look over your paper and let you know whether it’s “good enough” before you turn it in. That’s what your peers and the writing center are for. For specific questions, though, please ask! We are here to help.
7) Plagiarize. We are INCREDIBLY good at finding plagiarized papers. Literally, we’re a crack plagiarism-finding brute squad. Sentences that you have not written are not your work, and must not be presented as such. Academic dishonesty, even accidental, never ends well. Please ask if you don’t know whether something is ok.
I will attach a good examples
Patrick Almhjell (occasionally goes by “Jenny”) Case Study 1 Report CHM 394 12 February 2016
An Examination of the Paleo Diet
with Considerations from Family-based-Multi-socioeconomic-Sustainability Standpoints
(and also Logic)
Eating is a pleasurable experience. Eating rich, calorie-dense foods is an even more
pleasurable experience. Certain foods can stimulate the brain in such a way that pushes our
evolutionary buttons, filling our stomachs with nutrition and our minds with satisfaction. As such,
people are hesitant to give up their favorite foods – their simple sugars, their greasy burgers, their
mouth-watering desserts. People are nearly as unlikely to start a diet, one that reduces the inherent
satisfaction they get from eating, as they are to start exercising. Even if they do start it, people are
likely to give up and eating their old comfort foods in a way that may resemble a slow exponential
decay – if they are particularly willful. The diets with the most staying power are those that utilize
our evolution in such a way that we still receive satisfaction from eating, and are therefore more
inclined to continue on the diet and finally, eventually, see positive gains in one’s own health. That,
inherently, is the idea, but these types of diets are often eventually found to be based on
pseudoscience and fallacies and removed from the covers of most popular press as quickly as they
were instilled. These “fad diets” come up every few years, and it is the responsibility of science to
dispel them – and also to attempt to convince people to just eat healthily and maybe exercise a little
bit for once in their life, and stop being so passive and hoping for some “miracle diet” in which they
can eat what they want and still lose weight without any effort – that is ridiculous. This report, in
particular, will examine the Paleo diet, a popular diet that tries to answer the question of “How can
we be as fit as Paleolithic humans but still live in our 21st century environment and have time for all
of our 21st century desires?” The answer: not very well. The various aspects of the Paleo diet will be
scrutinized and compared to the realities of life, biochemistry, and the environment. My family in
particular will be considered, with arguments and points from various backgrounds (Tommy, the
stay-at-home Dietetics graduate; Peter, the Anthropocentric – I mean, Anthropology – Undergrad;
Hannah, a student of Exercise Science; and myself, advocate for the small, sustainable,
environmentally-friendly farmer), as well as other various situations that span all walks of life and
socio-economic status. By the end of this discussion it should be apparent that, while the ideology
behind the Paleo diet can be beneficial, the diet itself is not what it claims to, and never can be for
any 21st century family or individual.
To best understand my viewpoint, some background information on my family will be
given. My siblings and I grew up on a small farm in Wisconsin. We were able to grow many of our
own foods and trade or sell the excess at farmer’s markets. The eventual urbanization of the
neighboring city made the supermarket and other urban comforts close enough to us to be used,
and our diet became more processed and convenient and satisfying (dopaminergically, in particular
– not morally). This was our father’s bane, truthfully. Although he would still often make the drive
to the city and retrieve his red meats in bulk and freeze them when it was further, the convenience
eventually allowed him to eat red meats almost exclusively. It was processed, high in saturated fats
from the feed that was given to the previous host of the beef. Our mother, Karen, tried to resist the
heightened frequency of red meats in their diet, as they always ate together, but she would rather
just eat the meat than let it go to waste. However, she ate better when they ate separately, and
typically ate more vegetables and smaller portions of the meal. So, it was little surprise when our
father was diagnosed with coronary heart disease. Not to mention he was, is, and more than likely
always will be sedentary when not working on the farm, and to even further top it off, all of these
attributes were compounded by the genetic heart condition “hypercholesterolemia” – which could
be treated with the exact opposite of my father’s habits: lower saturated fats, lower low-density
lipoproteins, and an increase in exercise.
Any one of us – that is, myself, Tommy, Peter, or Hannah, could have aided in stopping
these habits. However, much of this occurred while we were in college. Tommy graduated last year
with his degree in dietetics. He now lives at home and is able to tell us the true details regarding dad,
instead of “oh, you know, he’s fine”, as is mom’s go-to status. Peter is an anthropology student
working on his undergraduate degree currently, and has very opinionated opinions (see:
judgements). Hannah is an exercise science student, and has studied the effect of various food source
on athletic performance in great detail. I am an environmentalist studying studying sustainable
farming, which has always been an idealized part of my small-farm childhood. When our mom
brought up the Paleo diet in the light of improving her athletic performance, it was as if each of our
academic paths had perfectly prepared us to discuss the competency of this diet, and its effect on
mom, dad, and the environment as a whole. I enthusiastically suggested that we all do our research,
and come up with the correct decision together.
Well, without dad. We know what his answer would be.
Paleolithic Misconceptions
The name of the “Paleo diet” may bring images of physically fit hunter-gatherers scavenging
for food, nomadic in accordance to the season and its harvest, and living simply to survive as one of
the earliest evolutionary human products. A caveman, of sorts. Since then, the agricultural boom of
10,000 years ago has completely altered our eating habits, and according to proponents of the Paleo
diet, evolution – that slow, meticulous selector – hasn’t had time to catch up. The Paleo dieters claim
that our digestive and metabolic systems are most adapted to the foods of the Paleolithic time, and
our genes are still stuck in that time. Disease, allergies, and other health issues are attributed to the
fact that we are eating the wrong types of foods; a Paleolithic system on a agrarian diet. There are
several arguments against this, however, backed by the best claim of all: the claim of the scientific
process.
The assumption that evolution acts slowly is, generally, true. There is a reason that
evolutionary events are considered on the “millions of years ago” timescale. However, this is not a
universal constant, as Peter pointed out. Under the right conditions, evolution can occur rapidly
and purposefully. Conditions such as changes in available resources (such as food), altered
environments and mortality rates, immigration rates, which in turn affect the total population
numbers, can and have been shown to affect the rate of evolution[1][2]. In only 30 short years, these
types of conditions were exhibited to alter the evolution of a sample of Darwin’s finches, passing
desirable traits like beaks better designed for the resource on the the next generation[1]. Of course,
the generations of a finch occur much more rapidly than those of a human population. But consider
that over the course of 10,000 years, 500 or more generations could have easily passed (especially in
those times, when lifespans were shorter and contraception was unavailable).
Furthermore, human evolution has been empirically shown to have increased over the last
20,000 years, peaking at the start of the agricultural boom 10,000 years ago[2]. With the increase in
resources associated with the start of agriculture, evolutionary selection had an increasing
population with increasing genetic variability on which to act, increasing the rate of evolution[2][3],
from the normal “millions of years” to just millenia. The fact that humans could have evolved to
conform to an agricultural diet should not be surprising. Look at the cow, the plants, the other
environments which we ourselves have altered through selection pressures, or so called “artificial
selection”. The cow has been evolved to be fatter, to make more milk, to mature quicker. Broccoli,
cauliflower, brussel sprouts, cabbage – all of these were cultivated (fancy word for “evolved by
vigorous selection by humans on timescale of years to decades”) from the same original species of
plant[4]. All of this done since the start of agriculture, as they are the products of agriculture. If we
can completely alter the genetic makeup of these organisms, it is absolutely plausible and even
supported that our agricultural society has evolved our systems to be proficient with the products of
that type of society.
The Paleo diet is commonly thought of as a high-protein, low-carb diet. This can probably
be attributed to those pictures you saw in grade-school history textbook depicting early humans
chasing a woolly mammoth may come to mind. In this way, the Paleo diet becomes a romanticized
ode to meat, the main source of sustenance for our Paleolithic ancestors. And people love this idea,
because people love meat. Except – our Paleolithic ancestors likely didn’t eat that much meat. Maybe
if their geographic location was simply teeming with wildlife this could be the case, but ancient
humans were just as much (or even more so) gatherers than they were hunters. Whatever was in
season was on the proverbial dinner table. The misconception can be connected to the fact that
plant matter in ancient Paleolithic habitats does not stay preserved like bones from animals do[5].
Furthermore, there is very little to suggest that Paleolithic people didn’t eat grains. On the contrary,
there is evidence of the grinding of grains by humans as long as 30,000 years ago, and dental
samples containing grains and legumes obtained from Neanderthal teeth as well[4]. Of course, the
amount of grains eaten may pale in comparison to the amount of grains eaten today, but that does
not mean that Paleolithic people rejected them.
Carbohydrates, whether true for Paleolithic people or not, are necessary for our proper
functioning, and encoded for by our DNA. Amylase is an enzyme, encoded by our genome, that
splits starches into simple sugars. It is expressed in very high amounts within the body, indicating
that we are evolutionarily ready to ingest and digest carbohydrates[6]. Our brain requires glucose as
its sole energy source. While glucose can be made from the glycerol molecule in triglycerides, and
synthesized from amino acids (such as alanine) through gluconeogenesis, these methods are costly.
Eating carbohydrates is the most simple and efficient way of provided the brain the nutrients it
needs to properly function and avoid adverse effects.
Simply put, we decided that the Paleo diet is not for mom because it doesn’t even exist.
There is no one single Paleo diet, especially not one that can be achieved in today’s society. If
someone wanted to live like a Paleolithic person and reject all products of agriculture, he or she
would have to set aside their 21st century desires and become a full-time hunter-gatherer… Have
fun with that, we said. And if a generalized Paleo diet could be constructed from the scientific
evidence (and not just from “intuition”), it would absolutely not be the diet described in “The” Paleo
diet. But while the diet was wrong with the specifics, many of the ideas behind it can be considered
to be beneficial (disregarding the evolutionary basis). We took these ideas, and came up with a diet
that would be good for mom, dad’s heart, and the environment.
Heart-Healthy Rejection
Rejection of modern agriculture is one of the most impossible ideas in the Paleo diet, but it
is possible also the most important. Modern agriculture is not agriculture, it is a business, exporting
all that is processed into our grocery store conveniences. This industry’s materials, plants and
animals, are so different today that many would be unrecognizable to the Paleolithic human, and its
products rearranged so completely that it takes highly technical science to trace them back to their
origin[7]. But this is actually more or less normal – organisms evolve, and consume. They adapt, and
digest. It is when they do not adapt, and consume foods that they are genetically not designed to
consume (based on empirical data, and not assumption), that issues can arise. Such is the case of the
corn-fed cow. As mentioned before, feeding corn to a cow increases the amount of saturated fats in
the beef, and is also associated with higher levels of LDLs after consumption, as compared to a
grass-fed cow[7]. Nearly all red meat available from the supermarket is from the grain-fed cow. Dad,
of course, will not give up red meat willingly. So switching him to lower amounts of lean, grass-fed
beef from small farms will not only help his heart, it will also help the environment. Reducing the
amount of beef that goes through the industrialized meat businesses has so many environmental
benefits that I can’t even do them justice, stemming from many iterations of many biological and
environmental systems such as the nitrogen cycle, green-house gases, water cycles, and antibiotic
resistance of bacteria.
While reducing the prescription of antibiotics in non-life-threatening situations is a great
step in slowing the evolution of resistant traits in pathogens, it turns out that nearly 80% of
America’s antibiotic usage is on animals intended for food. The conditions to which these animals
are subjugated requires the constant pumping of antibiotics into their systems in order to keep them
“healthy” (read: not dead). Incidentally, the low-but-constant dosage of antibiotics actually does
more harm than good, as the bacteria can survive the low dosages fairly easily, and quickly adapt to
be resistant to the antibiotics[8]. As these resistant bacteria spread to cities, newer and more potent
antibiotics are required to kill them, which inevitably leads to bacteria resistant to those drugs, and
the cycle continues. Furthermore, some antibiotics have been shown to be an issue for people with
chronic heart disease[9], furthering the reasons for dad to reduce his exposure to our agriculture’s
beef.
Living on a small farm, many of our normal dietary requirements are met by what we grow.
Living in Wisconsin, many of our dietary requirements are hard to come by during certain times of
the year. Vitamin D, for example, is lacking, as our bodies need sunlight to synthesize it, and we are
hidden in our houses, within our multiple layers, and under the clouds during the winter. While
our family owns a cow (good old Bessie), she is not a such a producer of dairy as her distant,
dairy-farm cousins. Much of our dairy has been supplied by the supermarkets. This dairy is fortified
with Vitamin D, and has never posed a problem for us. If mom and dad are to reduce their exposure
to processed food, they are to reduce their main sources of Vitamin D. The answer, however, would
make proponents of the Paleo diet proud: fishing for wild salmon in the cold rivers of Wisconsin.
Not only would this be avoiding products of agricultural fish-farming and environmentally friendly,
but it would also be a great source of Vitamin D and Omega-3 fatty acids, which are beneficial for
the heart.
Things became tricky when we considered carbohydrates. Glucose is necessary for the
brain, and carbohydrates (of which glucose is one) are the most efficient source. Neither dad nor
mom is celiac or gluten-intolerant, so gluten did not need to be considered. What needed the most
consideration was dad’s heart, mom’s benefits, and the environment. Legumes, starchy tubers, and
grains are products of agriculture, and as such should be avoided at the supermarket. However, if
obtained from our own crops, or the crops of another small, local farm, they create a viable source
of bulk carbohydrate to be consumed in moderation with the carbohydrates of fruits and vegetables.
Legumes in are particularly beneficial to the environmental impact of small farms, as they fix
nitrogen and reduce or eliminate the need for artificial fertilizer. Also, as Tommy pointed out, while
starches are a great source of carbohydrate and our body is encoded to metabolize starch, tubers
with high glycemic indices, such as the Russet potato, can increase the body’s glycemic load. A high
glycemic index and result in complications with heart disease[10]. Therefore, mom and dad should
replace the simple potato with a sweet potato or yam as often as possible.
If carbohydrates were left out altogether, the brain would find a way to obtain the necessary
energy. So, what is stopping us from disregarding carbohydrate-dense foods altogether? Well,
Hannah provided two reasons. The first reason is due to the fact that a low-carb, high fat diet
results in the creation of ketone bodies as a secondary fuel for the brain. One might claim that I lied
about glucose being the only fuel, but first let me inform you that the creation of ketone bodies only
occurs under starvation conditions. Under normal conditions, only glucose is utilized, just like you
would only consume real food for calories under normal conditions. Under starvation conditions,
you may very well eat a boot. But alas – a boot is not food, even if you can derive some energy from
it; as such with the ketone bodies. Furthermore, ketone bodies result in all sorts of ill effects,
ranging from gout to organ failure[11] (which may be expected from a boot-based diet as well). The
second reason Hannah listed to consume carbohydrate-rich foods is that studies have shown that
low-carb diets are linked to negatively altered moods[12]. Selflessly, my siblings and I decided that it
was a bad idea to recommend a diet that could make our mother depressed, fatigued, and more
tense than usual. During her workout session, mom would need the carbohydrates as the immediate
energy[13]. Relying on fats and proteins, which are typically secondary energy sources, may not be
compatible with an athletic lifestyle. So, carbs are in – just be smart about them, and don’t overdo
them (- dad).
Summarized, our diet is no “diet”, as described by the popular press, but merely a healthy
and balanced eating style, utilizing the benefits of carbs, fats, and proteins to give our body the
nutrients that it craves, in the forms that are best. Fresh, unprocessed foods, foods that are
sustainable and environmentally friendly, low in saturated fats and LDLs – these comprise the
holistic view of our proposed diet. Specializations to make the diet particularly heart healthy and
sufficient to provide the correct vitamins and nutrients, such as salmon for Omega-3s and Vitamin
D, allow this diet to be a complete nutrition system without the need for supplements, which may
be enough of a “Paleolithic”, evolutionary-based natural diet as anyone could ask for.
Hereditary Schmereditary
Throughout most of our deliberations, our decisions were driven by dad’s hereditary heart
condition and subsequent disease. But what if his genetics were different and he was never born as
hypercholesterolemic? How would our Paleo diet change? In my opinion, not very much. Many of
the facts presented that correlated to heart-health either had other important features, such as
general health benefits, environmental and sustainability considerations, and psychological
alterations associated with them. For example, reducing dad’s intake of saturated fats by switching
to grass-fed beef not only would help his heart, but would help his and mom’s overall health as well.
It would also reduce the environmental impact of feed-lots, and even support the local, sustainable
ranches on which the cows are raised. While antibiotics are a concern for an individual with heart
disease, they are also a concern for literally everybody else, with issues like “antibiotic resistance”
and “being ill enough to require antibiotics in the first place” set firmly on the “con” side of our
pro-con table.
The main point of contention that would arise in this situation would be the issue of
carbohydrates. Should they be restrained if there is little risk of heart problems with a high glycemic
index? Absolutely. In the chance that perhaps mom or dad could have other risk factors, and even
without them, their glycemic loads should be kept in check. Eating too many carbohydrates as
compared with your activity level allows your body to store the excess carbs as fat[13], which means
that mom should be conscientious of her carb intake and activity levels, and dad should as well –
especially during the winter, when the farm is not operable and dad then is practically inactive on a
day-to-day basis. With all other dietary options, it could be said that what is good for the ailing
heart is good for the healthy heart, and they should remain as discussed previously.
Dad’s Big Break
But what if, instead of an average-income family on a small farm in Wisconsin, dad was the
CEO of General Mills? Would we be able to keep away from processed food? Would there be an
incentive to buy whatever we wanted, increasing our consumption of store-bought meats and other
items? Or would we simply be more willing to spend the extra money on fresh, small-farm grown
items from the farmer’s market? I don’t have the answer, but as the moral center of the family (yeah,
I said it), I would absolutely strive for the latter option. I would demand that mom and dad ate as
healthily as they could, and buy only sustainable foods from sustainable sources, with the impossible
intention of offsetting the environmental impact of his factories.
But mostly I would probably hate dad for selling his soul slinging his processed poison to the
world.
Dad’s Big Bust
On the opposite end of the spectrum, what would happen if we were impoverished (besides
the fact that the four of us probably wouldn’t be in college)? Particularly, how would a lower budget
affect our ability to follow-through with our dietary design? I believe that mom and dad could still
eat in much the same way as our original design. The main issue would come from meat. Meat is
expensive, and sustainable meat even more so. By reducing the amount of money spent on meat, I
believe that mom and dad could easily afford to follow our diet. Since our impoverished state is due
to dad’s big bust (whatever it was), perhaps he would feel some responsibility and be more willing
to give up the red meat that he holds so dear. Whether he does or not, working the farm even more
would be a way to be able to eat and perhaps sell/trade more of the products at the farmer’s market.
The winter months would be hard, but this is where grain finds its place. Having a small
mill on the farm, or a place in which to store grains, would allow for the carbohydrates – energy – to
get through the winter. Preserves could add variety and other nutrients. Bessie would still be doing
her thing. Salmon, on the other hand, would be just as viable, provided the rivers don’t freeze. And
if so, we could simply get out the ice fishing gear and hunt for our own food – just like our
Paleolithic ancestors probably did. Or at least, that is as likely as them doing any of the other things
that Paleo dieters attribute to them.
References:
1. Grant PR, Grant BR (2002). Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin’s finches.
Science 296(5568): 707-711.
2. Hawks J, Wang ET, Cochran GM, Harpending HC, Moyzis RK (2007). Recent acceleration
of human adaptive evolution. PNAS 104(52): 20753-20758.
3. Zuk M (2013). Paleofantasy: What evolution really tells us about sex, diet, and how we live. NY:
WW Norton & Company.
4. Warinner C (2013). Christina Warinner: Debunking the Paleo Diet. [Video file]. Retrieved
from: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ
5. Nestle M (2000). Paleolithic diets: a sceptical view. Nutrition Bulletin 25(1): 43-47.
6. Perry GH, Dominy NJ, Claw KG, Lee AS, Fiegler H, Redon R, Werner J, Villanea FA,
Mountain JL, Misra R, Carter NP (2007). Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene
copy number variation. Nature genetics 39(10): 1256-1260.
7. Pollan M (2003). The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York:
Penguin Press.
8. Loglisci R (2010). New FDA Numbers Reveal Food Animals Consume Lion’s Share of
Antibiotics. Center for a Livable Future. Accessed on January 29th, 2016 from
me-lion’s-share-of-antibiotics.
9. Ray WA et al (2012). Azithromycin and the Risk of Cardiovascular Death. The New England
Journal of Medicine 366(20): 1881–1890. Accessed on January 29th, 2016 from
10. Beulens JW, de Bruijne LM, Stolk RP, et al (2007). High dietary glycemic load and glycemic
index increase risk of cardiovascular disease among middle-aged women: a population-
based follow-up study. J Am Coll Cardiol 50: 14–21.
11. Frigolet ME, Ramos Barragán VE, Tamez González M (2011). Low-carbohydrate diets: a
matter of love or hate. Ann Nutr Metab 58(4): 320–334.
12. Keith RE, O’Keeffe KA, Blessing DL, Wilson GD (1991). Alterations in dietary
carbohydrate, protein, and fat intake and mood state in trained female cyclists. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 23: 212–216.
13. Hawley JA, Schabort EJ, Noakes TD, Dennis SC (1997). Carbohydrate-loading and exercise
performance. Sports Medicine 24 (2): 73-81.
