On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:11:42 -0500, Robert Kesterson <[log in to unmask]>  
wrote:


>> Yet they didn't live any longer than us.
>
> I thought the issue wasn't so much *length* of life as *quality* of life?
>

Yes, but other things being equal, better diet should mean longer life as  
well as better quality.



>
> 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.

I agree, but the component that I remember seem to be found in the milled  
version - phytates, xeno-estrogens(?) etc.

>
> 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.

Me too. I've wondered if there was a more perfect food source that is now  
extinct. There is historical record of such being done deliberately in  
Belize - it was the fruit of the soursop tree. It's possible to imagine  
that something similar could have been done by paleopotentates to force  
people into eating wheat.


>
> 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.)

Smoking is a good idea for me. Sanity first, longevity second.
Also I hear that at least some of the studies showing the evils of smoking  
have been found to be at best dubious.

William

   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.
>

My guess is that activity is an antidote to a bad diet.