On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:37:20 -0700, Dr. R. Hoggan <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>... Interestingly, the natives who relied on corn as
>a dietary staple used limestone to mill it. That, apparently, frees up
>enough of the missing nutrient to avoid pellagra

Yes, the American natives used limestone or wood ashes, though they 
apparently used it during the soaking process rather than during the 
milling of the corn. The ground, slaked limestone (calcium carbonate) or 
ashes (wood-ash water produces a potash/lye that contains potassium 
carbonate) was added to the soaking water, which made niacin, lysine, and 
tryptophan more bioavailable. The soaking process reportedly removes the 
germ and hard outer hull of the corn--essentially a chemical peeling 
process. This results in a more easily processed and digested bleached 
product that Southerners call hominy corn. The hominy can then be dried 
and milled coarsely to make grits, or further milled into flour. The 
indigenous peoples also tried, when possible, to eat beans, meat, fish and 
other protein sources, which gave them a broader complement of amino 
acids. 

I've never processed corn into hominy myself, so I'm relying on several 
Internet sources that someone pointed me to when she looked into this some 
time ago (main source: Pellagra, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize).

>Further, the stature and body mass of orientals who are overly reliant
>upon rice gives further cause for pause. Although these foods are far
>less harmful than wheat, rye, and barley, they are also far from benign.
>

Yes, though humanity will have to make do with such compromises for many 
years to come, unfortunately.

>However, as many people, including Tom, have pointed out, there is
>little danger that these foods will be abandoned in favor of a diet that
>is higher in protein and fats.

Yes, in the near term that's correct. In the longer term, as human 
knowledge advances in fits and starts, it is bound to become more of an 
issue. I don't think Eaton, Cordain and Audette would have bothered to 
publish if they thought their books weren't going to convince anyone in 
the wider public. After each boost that this way of thinking gets from 
public proponents like Weston Price, Stefansson, Eaton, Cordain, Audette 
and others, there does tend to be a drop off of interest, but the 
knowledge is still accumulating just the same. The question is more one of 
when rather than if, and we can only make educated guesses on when it will 
come to a head. 

This dilemma resulting from overpopulation is the strongest 
counterargument that critics have been able to put up against promotion of 
a Paleo diet. Here are a couple of examples where this counterpoint is 
discussed (I have seen at least one or two others, but I forget where):

"[A]ssuming that the Paleodiet is the ideal way for an individual to eat, 
what about the population as a whole? ... With an ever-increasing world 
population and a decreasing pool of natural resources we must search for 
sustainable resources and food systems." (Counterpoints, 
altmed.creighton.edu/Paleodiet/Disagreements.html) 

"No studies have been done into the viability of the economic side effects 
of instating a wide-scale paleolithic diet, and if the farming is 
sustainable for large populations. Without such studies, it is difficult 
to know if there would be enough food to feed everyone. Some see 
overpopulation as the problem." (Paleolithic Diet, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet)

Of course, just because we adopt a Paleo diet and tell our friends and 
relatives about it doesn't mean we have to promote it for all of society. 
On the other hand, Paleolithic nutrition may give a boost to needed 
efforts to bring long-term global population down and preserve 
biodiversity--so there may be an ethical case to be made for spreading the 
knowledge.