Hi Geoff, 
Both of Oppenheimer's books offer considerable genetic evidence for the
spread along coastal areas. The beachcombing lifestyle is an assumption
based on that. As Oppenheimer explains, due to rising sea levels world-wide,
the archaeological evidence is submerged and essentially inaccessible. He
doesn't even mention the aquatic ape theory. His focus is on genetics and,
to a lesser extent, language evolution. 

If you will refer back to my post, I didn't say that our forebears ate an
exclusively sea food diet. I said that they ate a predominantly sea food
diet. The aquatic ape theory may not enjoy popularity but that is hardly a
valid criticism of its tenets. Nonetheless, the theory is too polemic for
me, as I just can't believe that all of our primate forebears lived even a
semi-aquatic life. 

The site you recommended, along with the language of that recommendation,
are just too polemic for me. I'm interested in evidence, personal
experience, rational deductions, or anything else that might lead me to a
richer understanding. I'm not interested in rants and loaded rhetoric. 

Aquatic mammals, crustaceans, and fish all contain considerable and diverse
fats. Large land animals contain considerable fats in their brains and bone
marrow, regardless of season. 

Your criticism of high fat is cyclic. I addressed that in my post by saying:

"The fact that Cordain has found that muscle meats from contemporary, wild,
ruminant game animals contain specific fat profiles that are problematic for
human health suggests that: 1. we evolved eating some other kind of food; 2.
The fat composition of this kind of meat has changed through extinction of
the large ruminants that carried much more fats, or; 3. current beliefs
about healthy fat profiles are flawed."

Best Wishes, 
Ron  


-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Geoffrey Purcell
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Paleo Diet offers the net-base balance needed

 

 

 

When I last contacted a palaeoanthropologist and asked him about the
Palaeolithic diet, he stated that, given the evidence, there was a very wide
variety of animals being hunted around the world, some small, some large,
some lean, some fatty, etc.

 so that it was impossible to give a definitive answer as to what the
palaeolithic diet truly is, given the wide variety of foods involved.

 

 

 

The only reference I've ever come across which claims that humans mostly ate
seafood is the aquatic ape theory which is highly controversial and heavily
disputed. Here's a page that debunks the more common assumptions behind the
aquatic ape theory:-

 

http://www.aquaticape.org/

 

Another problem with the high-fat proponents is that wild animals lose their
fat-layers as a result of famine or winter. Plus, it takes several years for
wild animals(eating natural grass etc.) to build up sufficient amounts of
fat.

 

 The high-fat theory only really works when one takes grainfed meat into
account as cows easily put on fat when fed on a very unhealthy grain-filled
diet, adding it on at a far faster rate than when on a grassfed diet. But,
there were no grainfed cattle in the Palaeolithic given the lack of
domestication at the time.

 

Geoff






> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:57:13 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Paleo Diet offers the net-base balance needed
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Hi Ken, 
> I must have missed something. Did someone try to censor your posts? As for
> your concerns for us and our net acidity, I'd like to offer the comments
> below: 
> 
> I'm a big fan of Loren Cordain's work. However, that doesn't mean that I
> accept his views without thought. Frankly, without clinical trials, most
of
> the work in the realm of base/acid balance that I've seen is speculative,
> anecdotal, or structured to render a pre-conceived outcome. There are some
> exceptions. For instance, Michael N. Marsh did some work with celiac
> patients measuring their calcium intake, absorption, and excretion. He
> stated: "More sophisticated metabolic studies have now established that
the
> overall negative balance in gluten sensitivity is the result of high rates
> of endogenously secreted calcium, rather than to actual failure of calcium
> absorption." (1) Although Marsh attributes this negative balance to
vitamin
> D deficiency, bone minerals used to buffer grain-induced acidity might
> contribute to mineral losses. 
> 
> Two of the studies cited by Cordain in that interview report that
increased
> protein intake can increase urinary excretion of acid, so the argument is
> less than compelling. I do not doubt that excessive lean meat might impact
> on bone density through alteration of acid/base balance. I do, however,
> doubt that fats induce increased acidity. 
> 
> Further, Cordain's focus on wild game muscle meat is, I think, a limited
> perspective. Burgeoning bodies of genetic evidence now indicate that the
> spread of modern humans across the globe took place primarily along
> sea-shores. The evidence also suggests that both in Africa and our
expansion
> out of Africa was dominated by beach-combing food gathering and hunting. I
> do not doubt that our forebears ate available land animals but the
evidence
> suggests that the mainstay of their diets throughout much of the
Paleolithic
> and Mesolithic was seafood, fish, and sea mammals, along with edible
plants
> and bugs. 
> 
> The fact that Cordain has found that muscle meats from contemporary, wild,
> ruminant game animals contain specific fat profiles that are problematic
for
> human health suggests that: 1. we evolved eating some other kind of food;
2.
> The fat composition of this kind of meat has changed through extinction of
> the large ruminants that carried much more fats, or; 3. current beliefs
> about healthy fat profiles are flawed. 
> 
> As indicated above, I think that beachcombing provided much more of our
> foods, for much longer than hunting game animals. Further, I believe that
> the land animals we did hunt provided us with much more fats. I'm also a
> fan of Gary Taubes, which means that I think that current beliefs about
> healthy fat profiles are woefully misguided. 
> 
> Sources: 
> 1. Marsh MN, Bone Disease and Gluten Sensitivity: Time to Act, to treat,
and
> to prevent. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 89;(2): 1994
> 2. Barzel US, Massey LK Excess dietary protein can adversely affect bone.
J
> Nutr 1998; 128:1051-53
> 3. Remer T, et al. Potential renal acid loads of foods and its influence
on
> urine pH. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995 Jul; 95: 791-97
> 4. Oppenheimer S, The Real Eve. Kluwer, NY. 1999
> 5. Oppenheimer S, The Origins of the British. Constable & Robinson,
London.
> 2006
> 
> Best Wishes, 
> Ron
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paleolithic Eating Support List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Kenneth Anderson
> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 12:40 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: PALEOFOOD Digest - 27 Jun 2009 - Special issue (#2009-167)
> 
> Suddenly there are no posts on "Paleo Diet offers the net-base balance
> needed," which was proving to be an interesting if provocative post? The
> questions have not been adequately answered regarding acid/alkaline diet
> philosophy. If Cordian is right, you folks could be damaging your health
as
> you age, and that's not something to censor.
> 
> Ken

_________________________________________________________________
Share your photos with Windows Live Photos - Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/=