Whilst I can't claim to be an expert in all things related to diet and nutrition, especially when it comes to Paleo/Primal ways of living, I like to think I do a reasonable job of looking critically at the advice we're given. I strongly believe that the diet-physical fitness-sleep-cognition-behaviour-habit combination is heavily interdependent, so whilst I've spent a lot of time studying, working and training in coaching and psychology, I've kept a close eye on health and fitness as everything we do is effected by everything we've done and thought...which is effected by everything we do. And the more I learn, the clearer it becomes that we can't focus purely in one area of personal development and hope that we'll get results in isolation.

 

And now it seems like the mainstream is starting to get the message. This article in the Sydney Morning Herald is probably one of the first I've seen that comes right out with it and says sugar is bad for you. The research piece it's based on does leave some questions unanswered, especially as it uses mice as it's subjects, but it's implications are clear: sugar, especially in the form of fructose corn syrup, is particularly damaging. Unfortunately, the article still manages to get a line of conventional wisdom in there by saying that we've got to keep fat intake down too, which someone in the comments section jumps on: if I need to keep sugar AND fat down, what the hell am I supposed to eat.

 

So, as with all new ideas and ways of being, we appear to be right in the middle of a change process. Or maybe we're still at the start. It's hard to tell. I'm reminded of the quote by Schopenhaur: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."

 

The lack of science suppporting the saturated fat/cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease hasn't stopped it being accepted as self-evident. Any other paradigm will be ridiculed to start with - much as Atkins has been ridiculed by the scientific community in the past. However, Gary Taubes makes a case that this ridicule was less to do with Atkin's views as much as how he promoted them. Now, with articles in the SMH suggesting things may not be as we first thought, the battle lines for violent debate are being drawn up. Why will it be a violent debate? Because there are many with large stakes in the status quo: agriculture, food manufacturers, diet experts etc etc.

 

For me it's just more vindication that I'm on the right track with my diet. I'm still battling with how to build exercise into my daily routine, but with more experimentation, I'll get there. I just hope more people get on the band wagon before it's too late.