Robert Kesterson
> There are exceptions.  I'm one of them.  I'm 42 years old, 
> and up until  
> the last few years, I ate plenty of grain products.  

Yes, and I didn't mean to imply that there aren't, just that I hadn't
personally met any middle aged big grain eater who didn't reveal at least
one modern foods syndrome when questioned. 

> I ate 
> the "standard  
> American diet" for most of my life, and a "country" diet for 
> much of my  
> upbringing (plenty of bread in that).  I have no aches or 
> pains, am not  
> pudgy, have all my hair, 20/15 vision, my cholesterol is 135, 

Great stats, it sounds like you're in or close to the hunter-gatherer range
of health. We can check that out in more detail if you don't mind, to see if
you really are the first exception I've run across. 

These are the ranges for LDL and BMI that Cordain and Eaton claim for
hunter-gatherers:

LDL: 30-70 (O'Keefe JH Jr, Cordain L, Jones PG, Abuissa H. Coronary artery
disease prognosis and C-reactive protein levels improve in proportion to
percent lowering of low-density lipoprotein. Am J Cardiol. 2006 Jul
1;98(1):135-9.)
BMI: 19-24

Optimal HDL is supposed to be over 60. I don't know what the HG range is.
 

> my blood  
> pressure is normal (typically 120/80 or so), 

The average for traditional Greenland Inuit Eskimo is 117/72 according to
Cordain and Eaton, but I don't know what it is for other HG's and the
traditional Greenland Inuit consumed abnormally high levels of omega 3 that
likely gave them a lower-than-normal BP for HG's, so your diastolic can
probably be considered optimal. It's within the <80 range that is considered
clinically normal, assuming it doesn't range much higher than that at rest.

> my resting pulse 
> rate is in  
> the low 50's, and I'm almost never sick.
> 

My resting pulse is usually in the high 50's and low 60's regardless of
whether I've been exercising a lot or not, but it was in a 70-83 range
before I went Paleo. So even when I'm not exercising I usually have an
"athlete's pulse" of 60 or less, indicating that for me diet was a bigger
factor there.

> you're not  
> necessarily doomed to health problems and early death if you 
> enjoy a slice  
> of bread (or pizza) now and then.
> 

True, though it depends on the individual, of course. For example, someone
with severe celiac disease shouldn't ever have a slice of bread or pizza
(when it includes gluten).

> ... I keep myself active.  I work 
> out regularly  
> (weights, martial arts, "cardio", etc.), and I purposely engage in  
> difficult physical tasks on a routine basis (digging ditches, 
> splitting  
> firewood, moving big rocks around, carrying bags of feed or 
> buckets of  
> water, etc).  I still think that this is one of the absolute 
> best hedges  
> against "old age" that there is.  

It's a very good hedge, but I think that diet and genes are bigger factors.
I was about to say that Lance Armstrong is another example of someone who
consumes large amounts of modern carbs (in his case, massive) without
symptoms of modern illness and with very good vital stats, but then I
realized that he had testicular cancer, for which I can't rule out a diet
connection. However, I don't doubt there are athletes who achieve optimal
health mainly through exercise and exercise is certainly another major
factor in health.

> The paleo diet appeals to 
> me because it  
> fits with what our bodies were meant to do.

It's remarkable and admirable that you adopted a Paleo diet without any
significant health problems. You must be very health and fitness minded.

> So it seems to me that getting the diet right is only one 
> piece of the  
> larger puzzle.

Yes, though on a national and global scale I see it as the biggest of the
big three--diet, genes and exercise. Diet and genes play a particularly
important role during the development of a fertilized egg into a newborn
baby, though the mother's exercise likely plays a role too.