In a message dated 11/24/2001 10:14:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> The answer depends upon which group of primitives you use as the
> standard for paleo diet.  In the broadest context, a question to ask might
> be:  is it a nutrient rich food?  Does it confer more benefits than
> drawbacks?
>

Paleolithic nutritionists formulate this question differently, since they
believe that benefits and drawback must be evaluated in a different context.
The important factor is not simply the vitamin and mineral content of a food.
 They feel the important factor is whether our bodies are *adapted* to eating
a particular food.  If not, there can be all kinds of subtle problems that
often only appear over many years.  Virtually all foods have good and bad
aspects.  Since we didn't evolve eating wheat, it causes problems for many
people--and most of these problems are not attributed to wheat by the people
having the problem.  The connection is usually not obvious.  But just because
wheat causes problems for many isn't to say it has zero nutritional value.
The nutritional content is not the most important factor from the paleo
perspective.

     - Sheryl