> >
> >    ...Could grain/legume be and
> >    "anti-meat" and vice-versa?
> >
> Possible, but you could upgrade your conjecture
> to an hypothesis by citing some statistics or

Do I detect some sparks here? Let me first assure you
that I am NOT anti-paleo, I am pro-paleo. I was merely
curious as to why the paleo theory does not seem to be
100% consistent (in my experience). There are "gaps"
in evolutionary theory, but I am still a die-hard
evolutionist.

> research evidence to support it. The caveat is
> of course that absence of evidence does not
> equate to evidence of absence

That last statement makes no sense.

>
> A starting point might be to see if anybody's
> bothered to analyze the steady-state metabolic
> & enzyme systems that each dietary paradigm
> requires.

I know of no studies that would compare the two (paleo
vs. neolithic) over time, or whether or not a "shift"
to a dominant enzyme state can occur. As I stated in
another post, most studies have been done on
populations that "mix" the foods. (Paleo dietary
theory is young - there have been no reasons for
researcher to exclude grains/legumes/milk in test
subjects. Perhaps that will change in the [hopefully]
near future). There have been numerous studies
regarding food combining, some of which show a
relationship - others do not, but that is not a
homeostatis issue. The closest I could get would be a
few studies which show the detrimental effects on a
population after a new food group is introduced, but
most of those are comparing "primitive" vs. "modern"
foods rather than meat vs. grain/legume. In order to
really test this it would be necessary to monitor
strict paleos and strict grain/legume vegetarians over
a (long?) period of time to see if any homeostatis
exists. Anybody want to volunteer?

>
> As Paleo WOE'ers know, there is often
> an energy dip during the transition away from
> SAD/Neolithic towards Paleolithic -- presumably
> from the metabolic lag between high-carbo-
> burning to high-fat/protein burning. Conversely,
> Paleos & strict vegans "sinning" with a grain-
> and dairy-heavy meal often become quite ill.

Good point. Happened to me when I had cereal and milk.

>
> Has any researcher documented what's really going
> on during such a changeover? Probably not,
> considering where research money comes from
> these days.

Another good point. Got milk?

>
> Ray did his library work and came up with
> the Paleodiet hypothesis. Please feel free
> to do the same and share with us.

Do you really want me to cite the sources for the info
I do have, or are you just being facetious? (Or maybe
just trying to shut me up).

>
> IMO grain/legume is and always will be
> a second-best meat substitute. It is simply
> not possible to provide any but the grossest
> approximation to the amino acid profiles; like-
> wise for most of the vitamins, enzymes and
> minerals in meat-like proportions. And even
> if it were possible, the economics would make
> it prohibitively expensive to produce.

Is may not be necessary to *exactly* match the
nutrient and amino profiles, as long as certain
minimum requirements met (the question here is whether
we actually *know* the correct requirements). The body
has the ability to "store" aminos and use them at a
later time (current conventional wisdom but I can cite
studies if you wish).

>
> As for how grain/legume digests poorly and
> afflicts the consumer with allergens, addictive
> opiate-like peptides etc, that's old news.

Not necessarily true. I will grant you that an
occasional bean meal will cause bloating and gas. But
the *conventional* wisdom is that the body can adjust
to beans over the long haul and "learn" to properly
digest them. Which almost never happens because of the
nasty reaction most users feel the first time out:)

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com