On Mon, 10 May 1999, Anna L. Abrante wrote:

        I personally do better on a low carb diet that includes
        milk products. period.  I am not opposed to paleo or any
        other diet, I simply look to question the idea that
        health can't be found with neolithic foods.

There's really no evidence that one can't be healthy eating
neolithic foods.  For example, the longest-living people in the
world are the Okinawans, who do eat forbidden fruits.  They eat
rice, for example.  They also eat pickled vegetables (there's
vinegar in them) and drink alcohol.  But their caloric intake is
low, compared to the neighboring Japanese, for example, or to the
SAD.  The caloric reduction enthusiasts point to that variable as
the important one, and they may be right.

The evidence that elevated insulin levels are implicated in heart
disease is strong.  The evidence that insufficient w-3 fats are
implicated in a host of health problems, including heart disease
and cancer, is also strong.  Evidence that grain and dairy
proteins, *apart from the other factors*, is weak.  I have found
some documentation that casein tends to elevate LDL cholesterol,
but it's not clear whether that is a problem.

Obviously, *some people* will have clear negative reactions to
some or all dairy and grain proteins, just as some people have
clear negative reactions to beef, eggs, shellfish, strawberries,
or a host of other "paleo" foods.  But these facts are a long way
from establishing that all paleo foods (as operationally defined
in Neanderthin) are good for all people or that no "neo" foods
are good for any people.

But the main thing is that the paleo idea gives us a kind of
"square one" to work from.  There is reason to believe that paleo
foods are *likely* to be well tolerated and health-sustaining,
even though it it not completely certain.  But this gives us only
a very vague picture, as you've pointed out.  There is a lot we
don't know, and may never know, about what actual populations of
actual prehistoric people ate, and about how healthy they were.

When people became agriculturalists their diet changed, but so
did a lot of other things.  Their whole way of life changed.  We
cannot blame all their ills on the diet change.  For example,
there is research that indicates that for Japanese who moved to
the USA, non-diet factors were more important predictors of heart
disease rates than dietary factors.  Those who maintained their
traditional Japanese lifestyles did better, regardless of whether
or not they maintained their traditional diet.

To return to the point made above, to the extent that we can
document the claim that the paleodiet works, there remains the
question of *why* it works.  Enig and Fallon suggest that there
may be a number of reasons, including the fact that it will tend
to keep insulin levels down and improve the w-6:w-3 fat ratio.
There is also the fact that less processing keeps vitamins
intact, including the important homocysteine-controlling folic
acid and B-6.  The sodium:potassium ratio is another factor that
may be relevant.

So the question becomes this:  If these are really the
causes of the diseases of civilization, is it better to attempt
to monitor them directly, regardless of whether the foods are
paleo or not, or is it better to choose only paleo foods and let
these factors take care of themselves, so to speak?

I think there is no very decisive way to answer that question.
For one thing, we don't know whether we have in fact identified
all the important dietary causes of the diseases of civilization.
That fact should push us toward the Neanderthin approach.  On the
other hand, our modern reconstructions of paleodiet involve a lot
of guesswork and use of foods that are substantially different
from what paleolithic people ate, so the disease-causing factors
may *not* be taking care of themselves.  This should push us
toward the monitoring of individual factors.  Or one can try to
combine both approaches, carefully selecting paleo foods in a
manner that optimizes minimization of known disease-causing
factors.

The drawback to any of these approaches, especially the last one,
is that they tend to turn the act of eating, which should be a
source of pleasure and conviviality, into an endless research
project and a nearly paranoid obsession with ingredients and
ratios -- all monitored with grim determination in the quest for
health and longevity.  It becomes difficult to accept a friend's
invitation to dinner -- what if they happen to serve lasagna?  Or
breaded chicken cutlets?  "I can't eat that" becomes one's
mantra.

In short, if you like some dairy stuff by all means have some.
Try to choose minimally processed sources, if that is possible,
but *enjoy* it.  Personally, I do better without the dairy
products.  They tend to cause me to accumulate extra mucus in
nasal passages, etc.  But if I go to a friend's home for dinner
and they have crumbled feta cheese in the salad, or melted some
mozzarella on the breaded chicken cutlets, I just eat them and
make a point of enjoying every bite.  And I have a glass of wine,
too.  If I have to snort and spit up a bit of mucus for the next
couple of days, what of it?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]