On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Richard Keene wrote:

> Wasn't the Stefansson study done about the turn of the century when the
> 'normal' diet
> was horrible?  They may have 'thrived' relative to the normal
> population.

The study was done from Feb. 1928 to Feb. 1929.  Even then the
scientist who studied them recognized that a negative calcium
balance was not a good thing, over the long haul.  The
significance of elevated cholesterol is far more controversial,
although there are few who would say that Andersen's average of
400 was a good thing.  I regard Ray's theory that it was the
coffee that drove up the cholesterol as conjectural at best,
especially in view of the fact that my own cholesterol also rose
quite high on a diet dominated by meat and animal fat, even
though I don't drink coffee.

It may be that elevated cholesterol is of no significance at all,
although this is not the position represented in Neanderthin.
Each individual must decide how much importance to attach to it.
I mention these things only to puncture the illusion that serum
cholesterol levels will only improve on a diet dominated by meat
and animal fat.  Indeed, the evidence suggests that they may
improve, but they may also worsen.  I think the problem of
calcium loss is even more likely to be an issue if a person is on
a meat-heavy paleo diet that does not have abundant sources of
calcium.

These things illustrate the problem of concocting a
cafeteria-style paleo diet that does not resemble in detail the
diet of any actual paleo populations known to be healthy.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]