Jim Swayze wrote:

>> "Paleo foods should be defined as those foods that our
>> paleolithic ancestors consumed. I thought that was an 
>> obvious given."
> 
> It isn't.

But it is, Jim. 

The word "paleolithic" is a reference to a period of history. "Paleolithic
foods" is therefore a reference to foods consumed during that period. A
"paleolithic diet" is a diet comprised of those paleolithic foods. And, last
time I checked, this discussion list was about the paleolithic diet.

At the very most we can stretch the definition a little to include close
genetic cousins of paleo foods, and as I mentioned we are to some extent
forced to do this because plants and animals have evolved a bit over the
last 12,000 years. But generally speaking, if paleolithic people did not eat
Substance X then Substance X is off limits to moderns who want to follow a
paleolithic diet.

When you advocate health benefits of a non-paleo food, or argue against
health benefits of a paleo food, then you are in both cases contradicting
paleodiet theory. 

This is not to say that such non-paleo arguments have no value. For example
in a recent post I urged someone to go ahead and take the antibiotics
prescribed by her doctor for her wisdom tooth extraction. But I know better
than to claim that I was arguing from paleodiet theory. 

-gts