On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Ken Stuart wrote:

> After 30 years of low-fat, Low-carb is a big step
> forward in helping millions to achieve better health - and it will
> automatically mean a greater emphasis on meat and other paleo foods.

I completely agree.  Furthermore, we don't have much in the way
of data on how much added benefit paleo provides over carb
reduction, except for those cases of obvious and specific food
intolerances.  I suspect this will differ from person to person.

I know I've said this before, but I am skeptical of the
underlying assumption of metabolic fragility that underlies the
paleo-purist approach.  As humans spread across the face of the
earth, I'm sure they ate whatever could be eaten, constantly
taking in foods that hadn't been part of the diet before.  And
they were, I believe, always looking for ways to make foods
edible.  I think "food processing", starting with just the
simplest techniques of smashing, shredding, and the like, has
been part of the human experience from the very beginning.  I am
therefore *very* skeptical of the claim that paleolithic people
never ate grains.  My conjecture is that they had been eating
grains for a very long time, but infrequently and in small
amounts -- like many other paleo foods.

I think what happened during the Neolithic revolution is not that
people started eating things that they didn't eat before, but
that the entire contour of their diet was inverted.  What used to
be an occasional supplemental source of nutrition became a
staple, and that is what did (and continues to do) the metabolic
damage.

Some do not tolerate certain nonpaleo foods well, but some also
do not tolerate certain paleo foods well.  I think that some will
be better off for avoiding grains entirely, but for others it
will make no difference at all.  But a lot of people are better
off just by restricting carbs to less than 100g/day, I think.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]