On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:50:19 -0600, William <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>   This is also shown in the
>> studies by Weston Price -- the diets of all the micro-cultures he  
>> studied varied widely, including in some cases, large proportions of  
>> things that were not paleo, yet those people thrived on it.
>
> Yet they didn't live any longer than us.

I thought the issue wasn't so much *length* of life as *quality* of life?

>> It seems to pose the question of whether it is the foods themselves  
>> (grains, legumes, dairy, etc) that are at fault, or whether it is  
>> merely what we *do* to those foods that puts our health at risk  
>> (excepting of course food allergies etc.).
>
> If food can change our genetic composition, then it is the foods  
> themselves.

Surely you wouldn't argue that a kernel of wheat straight off the stalk is  
not the same food as one that has been milled into white flour?  That's  
what I was getting at.

Understand, I am eating paleo myself, and I find considerable merit in its  
arguments.  But I'm also always looking to better understand these things.

>> (I also think it's what we *don't* do with our *bodies* that leads to a  
>> lot of problems (ie lack of hard physical work and exercise on a  
>> routine bases), but that's probably off topic for this list.)
>
> My last living aunt died recently, she never did any hard physical work  
> or exercise. She was 99, and healthier than most.

That's great!  But it's also anecdotal.  (For example, there are people  
who smoke all the time yet survive into their nineties, but that doesn't  
really call into question whether smoking is a bad idea.)  I was referring  
more to studies of populations like the Amish, who have what many here  
would consider an awful diet, yet they live long and healthy.  Some  
studies surmise that this is because of their more active lifestyle.

-- 
   Robert Kesterson
   [log in to unmask]