> ... For example, if we can prove that tomatoes, prior
> to Columbus, existed only in the Americas, and that our
> paleolithic ancestors were not in the Americas, we have adequate
> proof that our paleolithic ancestors did not eat tomatoes.
Piffle. Distraction by bad analogy. The logic I had in mind
would be: I might claim that Todd Moody is a mole for the Dairy
Industry, subverting the flow of PALEOFOOD for obvious purposes.
My claim might be baseless without proof, but nobody could prove
conclusively that he wasn't what I claimed. Also, I could claim
this hither and yon (within the limits of libel) and adhere
stubbornly to this belief.
As for "adequate proof", in fact there is no evidence that the
Old People ate tomatoes... proving nothing, really.
Inaccurate dating of bones and teeth led to the persistent
myth that a cave-man lived a short, brutal life. New evidence
has thrown that into doubt... yet the older meme persists,
even being cited by MDs and dieticians as justification for
discouraging patients from eating paleo.
>
> My point is that dairy, in the form of fermented stomach contents
> of young animals, was as available to paleolithic
> hunter-gatherers as spice herbs were.
And so were rocks, animal dung, swamp water, parasite-ridden
boar's livers, foul carrion etc. That doesn't mean these were
consumed more than once by accident.
Presumably the same reactions to eating what paleos normally
consider forbidden occur today as they did 30K years ago.
This biological/genetic similarity is the cornerstone of
paleo theory.
Eating bambi's curdled mother's milk might have been occasion
for real suffering, cramps, diarrhea etc, not relishing
enjoyment.
Eating grains might've made Grog stupid, sick & tired,
as grain does to so many today. Better than starving, but
given the choice between a fresh haunch of deer and a
handful of proto-wheat, which would Grog take?
Oops... but there I go, "mighting". But this is a stronger
"might", to the point of likelihood, than the idea that cave-
dudes might have sought out bambi-cheese when & wherever they
could. IMO.
> The basic principle of
> paleodiet is to eat only those foods that were available to our
> paleolithic ancestors.
How long did you say you'd been on this forum? This is a misleading
& incomplete statement. The other half would be to the effect that a
modern HG could and would forage anything that made her feel good,
kept her strong & eyes sharp, with good digestion & fertility etc.
The Paleo WOL & tradition of discovery, trial & error continues today.
>
> The seasonal nature of the availability of dairy is comparable to
> the seasonal availability of fruits, nuts, eggs of certain
> species, some fish, and many other foods. Do you propose that
> only those foods that were available to our paleolithic ancestors
> year-round are acceptable?
Nope. But you know as well as any human that if a food is available,
it will be eaten (unless known to be bad for you, but mostly not
even then). One of the curses of Neolithic is that previously seasonal
food is available year round: instead of a handful of indigestible
grain in the fall, it's now bread year round. Instead of bambi-
cheese, very rarely IF EVER in the spring, it's 2% homogenized in
January (or July down under) by the gallon every week.
Both grains and dairy have demonstrable addictive qualities in their
morphine-like peptides and casein digests. This has been postulated
as the reason they dominate the SA/Neolithic diet, and why so many
people have a hard time moving into paleo.
And so this is why, with the largest brain-to-body mass ratio on
Earth, we can -- unless distracted by entertaining unsupportable
fantasies about bambi-cheese -- reject dairy for what it is.
>
> Perhaps so. But then we must question the principle that what
> was available to our paleolithic ancestors is okay for us.
Not necessarily. Since this is *supposed* to be a WOE/WOL support list,
the context for discussion herein is over what is available today,
based on the long-term *staples* available to ancient paleolithics
and humankind's long-term genetic adaptaion thereto.
Milk, like grain, would not have been a staple. Only meat on the
hoof (& wing) could provide the concentrated nutrition year-round
needed for basic sustenance. If some slow-moving, stupid and very
fecund cheese-sloth had been the basis of (proto-)human nutrition
for 500K years, then this discussion would not be taking place.
> What
> shall we do with the fact that the majority of studies still
> correlate meat consumption with colon cancer?
Ignore it. Correlation does not even imply causality, except to
sensation-seeking journalists and those unable to grasp
probability theory.
Modern biochemical research can provide evidence to back up the
Paleo hypothesis, but it could not create it due to the dominant
Neolithic WOE/WOL context. Studies suggesting a meat-cancer
link are IMO flawed and inapplicable, not the least because
true paleo WOL/WOE'ers are not being studied, just the usual
sick, allergized, immune-challenged, subscorbutic Neo-eaters.
I dislike putting it in terms of us vs. them, but in WOE and
WOL and biochemically, that's just the way it is.
As for milk, obviously occasional exposure is tolerated by many
today as it MIGHT have been in the Paleolithic. It's the known
problems with chronic dairy these days that makes its use in-
defensible, so even arguing that cave-Men enjoyed bambi-cheese
whenever they could is pointless at best, and dangerous and
bordering on advocacy at the worst.
|
