Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:09:52 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Ron: Thanks for this back and forth. Much appreciated. So to pick back up:
***
[Jim] There is so much room within which one can operate while still being
paleo, that I still don't get the "one size fits all" concern.
[Ron] For most Europeans, perhaps.
[Jim] Interesting. So you’re saying that there are groups of people, mostly non-European (but some Europeans as well), who have evolved to the point where they *require* grains and/or beans and/or dairy in order to be healthy? That’s a new thought to me. I’ve always assumed that anyone can thrive on a base paleo diet and that some populations *may* be able to add non-paleo foods to varying degrees of success.
***
[Jim] It seems to me a very strong argument can be made that concentrated
sources of sugar, whether starch or honey or fruit, were not a dietary
staple for humans over the long course of our history.
[Ron] I would agree that is probably true for most humans.
[Jim] Innocent question. What populations thrive on high carbohydrate intake?
***
[Jim] Potatoes never. Not only are they nearly 100% carbohydrate, but they
are poisonous. Not even remotely arguably paleo, in my opinion.
[Ron] They can become poisonous from exposure to sunlight, but I don't know
which natives cultivated them and whether they did so for long enough to
adapt to eating them. Do you?
I don’t either. Thus caution.
|
|
|