On Thu, 3 May 2001 11:34:34 -0400, siobhan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>..  Is the point to eat paleolithically?  If so,
>pardon my expression, but, we're screwed.    Many of those foods do not
>exist today, and those that do have lower levels of nutrients.

I think the point about all that paleo-nutrition is to catch the main
basic principles of nutrition in our evolution times, and transform them
to a nutrition of today.
So, what is this?
-It may be ... avoiding all allergenes ("alien proteins"):
  My personal opinion is: There are no alien proteins (all non body
  proteins are alien).
  There are, however antinutrients which are   basically paleo-proof, but
  unusaly high in some neolitic staple foods like   cereals and legumes.
  Humans have adapted to them by adapting proper processing techniques
  which most have been lost today (phytin and bread).
  Basically a good idea to keep an eye on, IMO.
-It may be .. avoiding carbohydrates.
  IMHO this is historical impossible (we're stemming from fruit eaters).
  But carbohydrates without their proper nature context (particularly the
  associated vitamins b1-b3 and alpha lipoic acid) are a horror.
  A must to avoid.
  (in this aspect neolithic food is an enhancement to paleolithic or
   earlier times - but this neolithicum is not to be confused with
   industrial nutrition)
- Macronutrient ratios
  ... there may have been (and actually have been) a lot of different
  macronutrient macros which are actually paleo-proof. Hard to decide about.
  However there's few doubt that *fiber* has been very much more in 99%
  of the paleolithicum (and neoliticum and all  50   mio years before the
  paleolithicum)
- Micronutrients -- well today's h/g have much more than we today.

Much depends on what kind of paleolithical population you think of.
There is much uncertainity about what these people did actually eat.

I find the theoretical discussion about it interesting.
Somehow the direction here on the list went a lot towards the veg/antiveg
fronts. For me personally there were a lot of insights though.
Despite all uncertainty, for example I feel sure that the population who ate
 a high meat diet (>50% calories) was limited to a very small timeframe and
in turn a very small genetic influence on us.
On the other hand there are no doubts that some percent of insects reptiles
and small mammals have been always present.

> Those who
>believe that our foods still carry what we need have ignored evidence that
>states otherwise.  Six to eight weeks ago I posted something to this list
>that talked about the changes in the UDSA Nutritional Analysis figures for
>foods.

I've no doubt that your report is right. No only because of the theoretical
reasoning. A plant that grows  6 times a fast cannot collect the same
nutrients in it.
But also because you simply can *taste* it.
The taste difference between the organic vegetables I buy, and the stuff I
get at the casino is gigantic. I can understand why so many children and
adults just don't like to eat vegetables. What's offered is aggresive
tasting low nutrient stuff.
The organic stuff I get here where I live is (80%) very tasty, filling
satisfying. It's often so good that I'm really enthusiastic while eating.

Paying the double price and getting the 4-6 fold of nutrients
(most nutrients separate from calories)
seems to be the right way for me.

Paleo and today, one interesting difference is an enhancement:
Many of the "usual" vegetables are real superpowers in some aspect,
compared to their wild predecessors or to poor counterparts of some
local ecosphere.
Karrots, spinach, kohlrabi, fennel, sesame and more, all are
wonder-plants in some aspect.

>.. This level of toxins did not exist
>during paleo times.  If the belief is that the body has not adapted beyond
>paleo times in its nutritional requirements, how could it possibly adapt to
>a point of being relatively untouched by these 'new' human-made toxins?

Do you suppose that we could adapt to some toxins by some added
vitamins or nutrients? I doubt this.
Which toxins? Which nutrients?
Against some stuff antioxidatns like vitamin C and E may help.
These were exceptionally high in paleo times anyway.
The most dangerous toxins (PCBs, dioxins furanes) have no remedy.
Other toxins like pesticides and heavy metals nothing or not much.

Proper avoiding of toxins (by choosing the best origin and source beeing)
seems much more promising for me.

> Good heath comes first, and paleo provides us with the
>knowledge of what kept a body healthy during paleo times.

As far as we understand what was happening then.
One thing is shure: no plants, no preservations, no extractions.

> To survive these
>times, we must adapt to the demands of the environment. Supplementing
>wisely helps many people do this.

I see the danger that an actual unpaleo nutrition (or not so healthy paleo
constellation) could pass through
as healthy or historically correct by adding some chemicals.

There shouldn't be the *need*, as I said before.
The possibility still remains, of course.

regards,

Amadeus