At 12:49 -0800 23/1/03, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>sounds like sugars are paleo but to be avoided...?

Most of the "sugar" we eat today is highly refined and has no
nutritional value at all. Pure energy with no vitamins, minerals,
protein or fats.

On the other hand, fruit contains heaps of sugar, but the sugars are a
variety of different ones which each take a different amount of time
for the body to digest. Hence a more even feeding of sugar into the
blood stream. And the sugar comes bundled with all sorts of vitamins
and minerals.


>So, are sugars less harmful that white/whole wheat flour?

Wheat seems to be particularly toxic to many people. Not necessarily
for the carb content though. I have a gluten intolerance, which is a
reaction to the protein structures in wheat.


>less harmful than corn?

Corn has other problems, apparently interfering with B-series vitamin
absorption leading to pellagra.

In his paper "Cereal Grains: Humanity's Double Edged Sword" Cordain
writes: "Corn, like all cereal grains, is rich in antinutrients
including lectins which are known to decrease intestinal absorption
of many key nutrients".

Very interesting paper, although some of it goes over my head:
www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Cereal%20article.pdf


> I wish I could place foods on a continuum from best to worst.
>starting to think I don't understand paleo at all.

Well, the baseline of course is anything you can eat "naked with
a sharp stick on the African savannah".

Most people add in other foods which can be edible in their raw
state and which have been available to humans for tens of thousands
of years.

Products of agriculture are generally excluded... which I guess
mostly accounts for cereal grains.

 ...R.