Anna L. Abrante wrote:
>
> Again I draw attention to the part that says ."........for any species to
> fully adapt to..." Adapt in what sense?...We have very long living
> contemporary primitive agriculturalists eating grains and milk , albeit
> in VERY different forms that we eat in this country.   Considering that
> they're living long lives, what do they have to adapt to???? For what???
>    What are they doing wrong??? What are they missing??

I think Anna has a valid point in that if substantial adaption has occurred, the
matter is more complicated than if we were that first generation of
agriculturists.  That is not to say that paleo eating is not a good or better
diet.  It is just a question (perhaps not easily answerable) about the adaption
that has occurred.

I guess that this might tie into that statement in another thread about the main
problems being hyperinsulinemia and omega 3 fatty acid deficiency rather than
foreign proteins.  But as stated there, no definitive answers, yet.

What about the possibility that in a few hundred generations of living by
agriculture, we might have developed genetic mutations harmful to paleo eating
that have survived because of the predominantly agricultual diet?  What if we
cannot handle as high of a percentage of meat diet as our
great-great-great-...(repeat this 200-300 times)...-great-grandparents?  I don't
know the answer, but maybe someone on the list has read something on the topic.
____________________________________________________________

Aaron A. Weiss
[log in to unmask]
____________________________________________________________