Erik Fridén <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Datum: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:06:55 +0200 (CEST)
Från: Erik Fridén
Ämne: Fwd: What is paleo? Some definitions
Till: [log in to unmask]



Erik Fridén <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Datum: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:17:42 +0200 (CEST)
Från: Erik Fridén
Ämne: What is paleo? Some definitions
Till: [log in to unmask]

Greetings all paleo-guys and -dolls!
(snigger...)

Coming from the outside to "our" list could well cause some confusion. The "freshman" is actually told, remember, what should be considered paleo on this list, and is then thrust headlong into long discussions on foodstuffs which are... not paleo!? Don Wiss is absolutely right; we already have a definition: Neanderthin is our standard (with an eye closed to some unfortunate Cordain-contaminations) - but...
Why "paleo"? What does it mean? Being conciliary in spite of Neanderthin would be a good thing, so here is my personal summing up of some of the discussions.

Paleofood COULD mean:

a) foodstuffs or dishes that don't need neolithic practises and technology
This definition would actually rule out eating large quantities of soup or stew - no fire-proof cookery-ware in paleolithicum! Seriously though, early man on some African shore didn't have access to pottery. Proper skin-tech was most likely rather late, and cooking in wood or calabash/gourd containers (or shells) is definitely worse than the pits (in every sense!). Soaking, sprouting and fermenting in primitive containers when you're not settled is small-scale and ineffective at best. Leaves us with roasting and cooking-pits (and raw, obviously).
Some legumes WOULD be better digestable/perfectly fine (pick your interpretation) prepared this way, which is why I eat those legumes where the pod is edible too (Staffan Lindeberg's paleo-definition). Starch is broken down too, meaning access to most roots and tubers (Lindeberg again). The obvious advantages of relative low-carb has to be weighed against the obvious advantages of getting E-Z carbs in one no-fuzz piece of fruit or root. Early man was not stupid: "all work and no play make..." And carbs do have the advantage of not biting back when you try to get 'em. Considering the containers, dairy and alcohol other than stomach cheese (agriculturalism predates pastoralism, remember?) and the odd fermented fruit are doubtful. Would the frequency, amounts and seasonal availiability be enough to adapt genetically? Some would say yes, others no. Me, I'm hesitant. Leading over to...

b) food on which we are genetically predisposed to thrive
One of the main dogmas of paleodiet is that man as a species, i.e. ALL of us as individuals, have not had sufficient time to adapt to grains et.c.
Talk like "none of my ancestors came from the New world, so I shouldn't eat nightshades" or "all of my ancestors came from the Near East, so I can safely eat grains" is thus bogus, and the "paleo for me, but maybe not for you"-argument similar to "true for you, but not for me". None of us would have the genes to make such claims safely - period. And yet? Man moved out of Africa approx. 30-45.000 years ago and spread VERY QUICKLY across the whole globe. If 10.000 years is not enough to adapt to grain, might 30.000 years be enough to adapt to nightshades? In that case you redskins out there could safely rock on. (This in my opinion is a point worth dwelling on: could SOME non-GRAP foodstuffs actually be more paleo than borderline? Tubers, pods, nightshades and non-cereal grains for instance. Not that paleo-man based his diet around them, natch, but I'm liberal here.)

Which leads to another somewhat bogus thought: "paleo in small quantities". (Yeah, I know, even water is supposedly toxic in large amounts, though way after you've burst your tummy for space-reasons.) From a strict point of view - even if you can stomach small quantities - legumes, dairy et.c. are not paleo, considering the dogma no.1 above. That ancient man still ate e.g. stomach cheese when he came across it is another matter. From a more liberal point of view it's all a matter of frequency, amount and seasonal availability, right?

What about completely "new" foods, then? A strict interpretation of criterion b) would rule out e.g. macadamias, since paleo-guys couldn't crack their shells. A liberal interpretation would say, that while paleos didn't eat them, our genes don't seem to mind. (This argument ties in a bit with the above about quantities.) Thus, we ARE "adapted" to eat them while stone-age man never came in contact with them. This line of reasoning however would seem to support the Eades's pushing of "micro-filtered whey-powder" as "paleo"... Rats!

Should it be, that 30.000 years is not enough to adapt to a certain group of foodstuffs e.g. nightshades, the question then turns to one of cause and effect. Do we know of any people, that have not been raised on neolithic food (=grainfed), that are allergic to nightshades? I must say, nightshades agree tremendously well with me. At the end of my SAD-days they were basically the only veggies I could digest properly. Leafy greens... let's please not go there! I'm so glad I can eat sallad (and beetroots) again!

In my opinion paleo is thus:
True paleo: foodstuffs edible (not necessarily tasty though!) naked with a skewer on the savannah (= fire, but no advanced cooking utensils). Might include some non-GRAP foods where the "bad" substances are broken down by simple heat (IMHO most tubers and roots and a very few legumes).

Quasi-paleo: foodstuffs made agreable to our paleolithic genes through neolithic-and-later tech (including large-scale soaking, sprouting and fermenting) WITHOUT simultaneously ruining them in some other way. Would not generally apply to ANY of the "forbidden" foodstuffs, but there might be some exceptions in all the classes, depending on which toxins can actually be dealt with by "gentle" methods.

So whadd'ya all think?!
Erik the viking ;-)





Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor



"Mensch, werde wesentlich! Denn wenn die Welt vergeht,
so fällt der Zufall weg; das Wesen, das besteht.
Viel haben macht nicht reich. Der ist ein reicher Mann,
der alles was er hat, ohn' Leid verlieren kann.
Freund, so du etwas bist, so bleib doch ja nicht stehn:
Man muß aus einem Lichte fort ins and're gehn."
Angelus Silesius
Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor



"Mensch, werde wesentlich! Denn wenn die Welt vergeht,
so fällt der Zufall weg; das Wesen, das besteht.
Viel haben macht nicht reich. Der ist ein reicher Mann,
der alles was er hat, ohn' Leid verlieren kann.
Freund, so du etwas bist, so bleib doch ja nicht stehn:
Man muß aus einem Lichte fort ins and're gehn."
        Angelus Silesius
Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor