On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:14, Eric LoVullo wrote:

>Keith,  I think you made great points on your ideology.  But for me....

>1.  Clearly humans would have consumed frozen foods
>on a regular basis.  The other packaging is a dismissal
>of a food that "might" effect its nutritional qualities, but
>that surely is an open ended issue until someone tracks
>absorption rates of each individual nutrient. (and whether
>this increased/decreased absorption is beneficial or not.

I deliberately didn't say anything about the nutritional quality of the Palaeo diet. You asked "what
this diet actually should entail". It's clear to me that people could eat wholly Palaeo and still have a
diet less healthy than others with access to the same range of foods.

It is easy to come up with examples like "humans would have consumed frozen foods on a regular
basis". Yes, but would it have been regular enough across the species (Homo sapiens or Homo
heidelbergensis) to have caused phenotypic change?

I'll stick to my guns that packaged food is not Palaeo. Forget anything about the nutritional quality
of any particular packaged food – that's not relevant, you still couldn't "find it on the savannah
with a sharp stick" and that rule of thumb does for me with the exception of dairy products for
those whose ancestors evolved a tolerance to them.  For me, groceries are non-Palaeo.

>2.  Available locally/seasonally doesn't follow any true
>definition of paleolithic nutrition.  Just because I might
>live in the tropics does that mean I should eat tropical
>fruits year round?

The Palaeo diet comprised wholly vegetables, fruit, meat, insects etc. that were available locally.
Sure, it might not be convenient to follow that model today, but if you don't follow it, be aware
that you are not eating Palaeo – more likely it's some sort of 21st century compromise.
Compromise is fine, but don't kid yourself that it's "pure".

>The plants that are consumed in the diet today most
>likely do not represent those of the past.

True, but we can come closer to the Palaeo originals in our own gardens (see my posts earlier this
month and in January and February this year on tomatoes.  In the case of plants, heirloom varieties
grown in an organic or Permaculture way come reasonably close.  Packaged foods (see above) are
a long way off.)

>My take on consuming only organics and natural fed animals
>is that it is an anecdotal no mans land.  There is absolutely
>no proof that consuming organic vegetable or fruits are any
>more beneficial.

I wasn't referring to "beneficial"; I was referring to what the Palaeo diet entailed.  "Beneficial" in the
sense you are using it is a non-Palaeo sense if I read you correctly.  Homo sapiens during the
Pleistocene did no nutritional analysis and if we get the principles right, we don't need to do any
nutritional analysis today either.

>
>Well could someone please show me a study
>that pits grain fed beef verse grass fed beef,
>that does not involve using the USDA's
>data for the grain fed animal.

Try: Loren Cordain, S. Boyd Eaton, Anthony Sebastian, Neil Mann, Staffan Lindeberg, Bruce A.
Watkins, James H. O’Keefe, Janette Brand Miller. Origins and evolution of the western diet: Health
implications for the 21st century. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:341-54.  It's available at:

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles.htm

> ... A very basic course on ruminant nutrition. ... First food
>goes to the rumen then protists and bacteria actually digest
>it for them ... the ruminant then regurgitates some of the
>food, and moves it through its three other stomachs,
>killing and finally absorbing these protists and bacteria.
>So almost all of their nutrition is these bugs;  not plants,
>not fruits, not grains; not meat.  .... it seems reasonable to
>say grass fed have a better omega profile, they contain such
>a small amount of these fats that a few walnuts would skew
>it the entire other direction.

Interesting science, but it counts for zip in deciding what foods are Palaeo and what are not.

>And as for milk well that is a concession that you take.

Well, not a concession – it's based solely of the evolved tolerances of my own body. Just because
the tolerances may have evolved in the Neolithic does not discount the fact that dairy foods
appear to be quite compatible with my body's physiology.  In my case, I don't use milk and over
the past four years have drunk just a litre of goats' milk (to try it) – no cow's milk.  Just a nibble of
cheese every few days.

>My concessions are vegetables and fruits (and obviously
>the teas I drink).

I can't see why fruit and vegetables are a concession – a concession to what? 21st century
convenience? Personal taste?  My only drink is rainwater and a glass of red wine most evenings.

>Also you can see why I have a little more work to do
>in figuring out what "my paleo" diet entails.

Here I am with you.  I'm still working out what my Palaeo diet comprises.  The direction it is going
is to become more dominated by the fruit, vegetables, meat and eggs I grow myself and the
rainwater I capture.

Keith