On Sun, 11 May 1997, Ward Nicholson wrote:

> The other way, of course, is the way that Paleodiet diet takes: Start from
> a working premise (the "is/ought" premise mentioned above) which is at
> least generally on-target, though it may be lacking in details or
> peer-reviewed research (so far, anyway). You reason from one of the "given
> principles" or root assumptions of evolution; that we as homo sapiens (like
> any other species) are adapted to what we did over a long enough period of
> genetic time to become adapted to. And an important corollary of that
> reasoning is that anything that strays from that evolutionary adaptation
> is--by the principles of evolution itself, if not guaranteed--at least
> highly likely to be inimical to health and survival. Unless of course, it
> happens to be one of those rare deviations governed by a genetic mutation
> that just happens to be beneficial.
>
> So from this viewpoint, insisting on a case-by-case analysis that may not
> be available before deciding what to do is tantamount to saying one is in
> doubt about the premises underlying all Of evolutionary reasoning, and
> perhaps does not take them seriously. (Of course, if one also knows
> case-by-case details and scientific studies to support them, I certainly
> welcome that--all the better, it's gravy, so to speak, and we definitely
> ought to be working toward that eventuality wherever possible.)

Agreed, up to a point.  I don't think one has to doubt the
premises underlying evolutionary reasoning to doubt some of the
conclusions drawn from those premises.  Of course, in the
meantime one must decide what to *eat*, and this requires a
judgment call as to how sound these inferences are.

My own inclination is to try to start out as minimalistically as
possible, to establish a baseline of response to the "pure"
paleodiet.  Then, with the help of this list, try to investigate
the possible objections to "suspect" foods.  It would be useful
to accumulate a Forbidden Fruits index, with commentary on what
is problematic about each entry, when such information is
available.

Consider wine.  Ray Audette says to avoid it, because of the
well-known deleterious effects on the liver, etc.  He also
asserts that wine triggers cravings for other forbidden carbos.
But it is also known that moderate ingestion of wine has a
beneficial effect on insulin sensitivity and HDL levels.  And
moderate use of wine is not known to have any bad effects on the
liver.  I suspect that the cravings will vary greatly among
individuals.  Still, it is also a fact that the residual yeast
proteins in wine trigger an immune system response in some
people: migraines.  The offender appears to be the amino acid
tyramine.

But anyone who avoids wine because the tyramine triggers
migraines must also avoid many supposedly safe paleodiet foods,
such as citrus fruits, tomatoes, and avocados.  So, while wine
needs to be off-limits for some people, precisely because of the
sort of autoimmune effects that the paleodiet is calculated to
avoid, it seems that for others this isn't an issue and the stuff
can actually be beneficial, even though hunter/gatherers couldn't
get any.  Is there any other specific reason to classify wine as
a Forbidden Fruit?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]