Hi Ron, thanks for your great reply to my response to your gluten paper--I
think you answered every single nitpicking question I had. :-) Sorry if I
sounded a bit peeved here and there in asking all those questions. At the
time, I just thought, "Oh no! Here we go again with another scientific
paper that makes me feel like an idiot!" :-) (Any smart-aleck comments from
anyone on the possible truth of that supposition will be met with a rap on
the knuckles with a No. 2 pencil. :-) )

I have another question on gluten, and then another couple of generic
questions about Paleodiet for anybody here. First, Ron, based on wide
reading in the field, I have had suspicions about the problematic role of
grains for some time, although I wasn't really sure, so it is great to see
all the research you are doing going into the whys and wherefores. So due
to your and others' influences, I have been trying to cut back on grain
products recently, but I have a problem in that I am a distance runner, and
I can't seem to get the oomph I need without eating a certain amount of
grains. I don't do what the running community calls "carbo-load" (that is,
stuff yourself with carbohydrates for fuel prior to tough workouts or
races), but I *have* seemed to find that my energy has better staying power
during my runs if I eat some kind of bread at the meal prior to my runs.
Potatoes and such--another kind of carb--don't seem to do the trick as
well. Also, too much fruit and my blood-sugar reacts by getting pumped up
but then nosediving. (I have pretty sensitive blood sugar due to a past
history of over-indulgence.)

My question is this: The breads I have been eating are all "sprouted"-type
breads. I.e., either the very moist/heavy "Manna"-brand breads (round
loaves), or the types of sprouted bread like "Ezekiel bread" or Shiloh
Farms "7-grain" breads you can find in the health-food store. At first I
was under the impression that when they were sprouted, grains became
gluten-free, but I have recently learned (I think) that this is an
illusion. Is it true that sprouted breads are just as problematic as those
made from regularly processed and milled grains?

Assuming the answer to that question is yes, or at least a qualified
yes--well, then, what to do for someone like me who has been dependent on
them for energy? Perhaps I just need to experiment more, or commit to a
longer-term program of getting myself off grains, and maybe my energy for
running wold eventually return to normal levels. But just wondered if
anybody here who is an endurance athlete had any practical suggestions or
examples from your own life specifically about how you made the transition.

Question number two: Recently I was talking privately with a Paleodiet
researcher (who may or may not be on this list yet, I don't know), who said
the often-cited estimate of a ratio of 65% plant/35% animal foods for
humans during Paleolithic times has turned out to have been based on
mistabulated ethnographic data. (As far as I can tell, "ethnographic data"
apparently meant that a database of modern hunter-gatherers
plant/animal-food eating patterns had been amassed, and was the basis for
projecting back into the past what the ratio may have been in prehistory,
but I may be wrong in that interpretation.)

Anyway, with a corrected retabulation of the data, it is looking like the
ratio of animal foods in Paleolithic times would have been more like 50%,
possible as high as 65%, ever since homo erectus 1.7 million years ago.
Also, the researcher said that muscle meats would have been the very *last*
part of the animal to be eaten, with the brains, organs, and bone marrow
being far more highly prized.

I found this a bit mind-boggling, mainly because of the practical
implications for people trying to approximate a Paleodiet today. Due to the
way food animals are processed and put on sale today, you can't even find
brains or bone marrow, and precious few organs for the eating. This
means--according to what I understand--that in focusing mainly on muscle
meats today, we are eating the lowest-grade portion of the animal. And
beyond that, there is the factor of cost: It would be cost-prohibitive for
most people even in fully economically developed countries to afford to eat
50% or 65% of their diet as meat--let alone be able to feed the whole world
this way. Even if the ratio were the lower 35% animal food, it would still
be a tough row to hoe for most people other than the economically well-off
getting that much in our modern diets.

This obviously means we have to make some compromises--or at least
intelligent substitutions--in trying to achieve the nutrient profile
obtainable from a truly Paleolithic diet. I have developed quite a taste
for meat as I have changed my diet to be somewhat more in conformity with
what is known of the Paleolithic norm, but I know it's nowhere close to
what it could be. So my question is: what do those of you in the Paleodiet
research community do about your own diets, assuming you are trying to put
into practice what you have learned in your research? Is it really
necessary to eat as high as 50-65% animal products for optimal health, or
is there perhaps a *range* of say 10 or 20% to 60% that for all practical
purposes might get close to the same results? And/or if not, are there
other foods or supplements that might wisely be used to bridge the gap?

Third question: The "caloric restriction" research community studying
longevity in lower animals (and more recently in primates) has found
lifespans can be greatly increased in lower animals by restricting food
intake so as to lower the rate of metabolic wear-and-tear on the body. From
what I know about it--which is not very much--in addition to volume of food
intake, the caloric restriction researchers have also seemingly implicated
protein, and specifically animal protein, as a factor that accelerates
aging, and so they advise minimizing its intake to the lowest prudent
level. (To what they call "CRAN" or "CRON," meaning respectively, "caloric
restriction with adequate nutrition" or "caloric restriction with optimal
nutrition.") This would seem to be at direct odds with current dietary
advice in the Paleodiet community.

My question about this point is: Is focusing strictly on longevity
inevitably at cross-purposes with fully robust Paleolithic nutrition? Are
there cost/benefits to the level of protein intake--or to anything for that
matter--so that it is folly to think you can have your cake and eat it too?
That you have to weigh the pluses and minuses and settle with the
particular compromise that pleases you the most?

An example: From reports of people practicing caloric restriction, it seems
that among other things one experiences drastically reduced sex drive as
well as muscularity--you get extremely skinny and--apparently, I am
surmising this--probably don't have very high sex hormone levels in view of
the reduced sex drive many seem to experience. (These just seem to be the
actual results that people doing it experience.)

Anyway, let's assume caloric restriction in a modern protected lab
environment might theoretically result in increased longevity. Looking at
the other side of the coin, would the characteristics of reduced sex drive
and decreased muscularity and physical prowess not have been
counter-survival for the species in a rough-and-tumble Paleolithic
environment? I am myself not interested in doing caloric restriction,
because I simply don't feel my best nor enjoy life in the present without
certain amounts of food and certain levels of animal protein, but I do
wonder if I might be sacrificing a bit of longevity. It's something I don't
at all worry about, but nevertheless it is an interesting question, I think.

Any comments from the researchers or anybody else on the list about any of
this?

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> Wichita, KS