On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Wally Day wrote:

> I think we have to measure foods that
> may be considered paleo with the same yardstick we
> measure everything else. If a food ain't good for you
> - it ain't good for you.

I agree.  The problem is that it's not always a simple matter to
use that yardstick.  Do we trust epidemiological studies?
Clinical trials?  Case studies?  Field studies?

> > Nuts are clearly
> > paleo, but we have some people here saying that we
> > shouldn't eat
> > them because they contain anti-nutrients.
>
> So, instead you're saying that some dairy MAY be paleo
> even though most on this list would agree that dairy
> is a definite no-no?

My point is simple enough.  Raw milk and cheese were available to
paleolithic humans on a seasonal basis, in the form of udder milk
and stomach contents.  Applying the "sharp stick" principle, they
pass the test.  You can kill a lactating cow or goat or sheep
with a spear and there will be milk in the udder.  You can kill a
calf and there will be milk in the stomach, fermented by rennet.

Do we know for a fact that paleolithic people consumed these
things?  Of course not, and neither do we know for a fact whether
they consumed many other things, such as strawberries, walnuts,
and so forth.

I am not advocating the use of dairy foods.  I am calling
attention to what I regard as inconsistencies in the application
of "paleodiet principles" to specific foods.

> What I'm saying is whether or not a food
> is paleo should be the starting point. You're nuts
> analogy proves this out.

If I understand you, this implies that the acceptable foods are
that subset of the paleo foods that have not been found by
scientific methods to have something problematic about them.  Is
that correct?  Thus, even though we can suppose that nuts were
eaten by paleolithic humans (at least, we have as much basis for
thinking so as we do for many other allegedly paleo foods), you
accept the argument that we should not eat them because we now
have identified anti-nutrients in them.  Is that a fair statement
of your position on this?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]