Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:21:30 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
none |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|