I recently read what is entitled the "Protein Debate" between Loren Cordain, a paleo diet proponent, and Colin Campbell, a plant-based diet proponent. Given that I'm simply a graduate student without any specific adherence to either diet philosophy, i found the debate to be fascinating. Both had strong points to defend their positioning. In short, this is how it goes: - Loren Cordain argues that because nutritional science is a young, evolving science with little agreement as to what is correct in eating for the general population, they should have a "guiding paradigm" based on the diet of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. The paleolithic diet would be one that include high amounts of protein from lean meats and minimally processed foods of paleolithic resemblance.
- Colin Campbell argues that nutritional science is not young (it's older than many other sciences) and, that, although knowledge of ancestral diets may be helpful, "biological complexity" throws out its use as a reference standard (after all, high calorie intake from meat may have increased likelihood of reproduction, but not guarded against disease). The priority should be given to searching for dietary factors that cause "collective disease and health outcomes" to guide nutritional recommendations.
You decide. They could, in fact, both be right and wrong on different levels. David
