[log in to unmask] wrote:

>Yes, meat is the only essential food.  Steffanson et al showed that we
>can thrive on meat only.  Not that other food items aren't good for us
>and weren't consumed frequently by our paleo and meso forebears.   But
>that's where you open the door to whether a food item is paleo or not.
>
>

Or, to put the point somewhat differently, as soon as you consume
something other than meat, you open the door to that food, *paleo or
not* being deleterious to health.  Nuts might be paleo, but might not be
good for you (too much omega-6 fat); same for berries (oxalic acid);
same for fruits (cyanogenic compounds).

Furthermore, it's not clear that Stefansson and Andersen showed that we
thrive on meat only.  It's true that they didn't become sick during the
Bellevue experiment, but they were shown to be in a continuous state of
negative calcium balance, which is probably not a good thing.
Furthermore, Andersen's cholesterol shot up past 600 mg/dl, a level that
even the cholesterol skeptics concede isn't healthy.  It returned to
normal within a few weeks after the conclusion of the experiment.  Ray
Audette has expressed the opinion that Andersen's extreme cholesterol
readings were caused by his consumption of unfiltered coffee, the only
non-meat item they were allowed.  I agree that this is possible, but it
is far from confirmed.  For one thing, in 1928 unfiltered coffee was the
norm in any case, since the standard way to make coffee then was to
percolate it and not use filters; and we'd need some reason to believe
that Andersen *stopped* drinking unfiltered coffee when he left
Bellevue.  My view is that Stefansson's experiment showed that an
all-meat diet is survivable for a year, but I don't think any very
strong conclusions can be drawn as to whether it is optimal.


>Look, you seem to focus a lot on the fringe, adjunct foods, which is
>fine theoretically: It's fun to argue about.  But it's also dangerous
>to most on this list who are trying to figure out what to throw down
>the gullet this evening for dinner.  I'm simply saying "caveat emptor"
>with the fringe items -- they make a huge difference to someone like me
>who gets very sick eating wheat.
>
>

True enough...and it's why I also say "caveat emptor" to anything I
write...and remind people that it is, after all, heterodoxy.  It's also
why I don't post much anymore.  Non-meat foods may well be fringe foods,
but since most people *will* consume non-meat foods, I think it's
reasonable to try to make some sense out of this area.  And it's
precisely here that the paleo concept gets blurry.  The original issue
was having a bit of oatmeal as part of a paleo diet.  Since oats were
(a) available in paleo times, and (b) edible raw and even moreso after
soaking (an easily paleo food processing technology), I don't see any
reason not to classify them as paleo.  They may be seasonal, as berries
are, but they also grow in great abundance.  Why should we assume that
paleo people didn't eat them when they were available, when children
could be sent into the fields to gather them, just as they could be sent
out to harvest berries?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]