As I follow this discussion it seems that much of the point of
approximating a Paleolithic eating is lost on some

Real Paleo eating has little to do with close examination of this or
that effect of certain foods on the body. Our starting point is eating
those foods that approximate the the foods that we might eat in a
pre-agriculture setting. More detailed study might tell us more about
why Paleo is a better way to eat. But we have a problem. When it comes
to nutrition the 'science' is so sketchy that most people in the world
will either suffer from diet induced health problems or they have them
already. The studies look good, grab headlines, but in the end kill us
slowly.

Cordain's the 'Paleo Diet' seems to me to be a much better 'diet' than
most but it is presented as a 'diet' - and 'diets' as part of a
'Western' culture are not necessarily the final word on nutrition, or
something that endures; 'diets' are a fashion. They come and they go -
the next supposedly better than all those that came before, and often
associated with a personality or 'scientist' and 'research'.

The world does not need in depth research into what foods do to us
except that this is to understand the processes of our lives - and
these processes need to be placed in the human context. Animals
evolved in an environment. Without that context nutritional research
tells us nothing of any use. It is like trying to work out how a
bicycle works by looking at it through a microscope.

To me at least it is clear that meat and fat consumption were a
significant part of a pre-agricultural diet; and woven in with our
evolution as a relatively large brained species. No meat and fat, no
big brain. The fruits and vegetables that nutritional 'science'
examines are not the same as those that we might have eating before
agriculture: ours are bred for sweetness and color and shape, or an
emphasized nutritional factor. The same is sadly true about much of
our meat. It is just not possible to do real nutritional science
starting with modern analogs of meats, fruits, and vegetables. So I
think we should approach all nutritional studies with a pinch of salt
as it were.

I think that Cordain is obviously wrong to present his idea of acid
balance in a Paleo diet as definitive because the raw material for his
research is not the same as a real Paleolithic diet. It also does not
fit the 'big picture'.

But what is a real Paleolithic diet? Subject to discussion I expect!

I could go on and frequently do but I'll go back to my cave now.

Cheers

Neil

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Robert Kesterson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:20:20 -0600, Kenneth Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> The body will maintain its own pH balance, for the most part regardless
>>> of (or in spite of) diet.
>>>
>>>  Robert Kesterson
>>>  [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Not according to Dr Cordain.  Repeat: There are a number of adverse
>> health effects either partially or wholly caused by a net acid
>> yielding diet (cereal grains, meats, cheeses, fish and salt. The only
>> base yielding foods are fruits and vegetables.
>
> By that reasoning, we should all be vegetarians.  All the people who eat
> low-carb or zero-carb (as do some on this list) should be keeling over by
> now, or at least toppling from bone disintegration.
>
> --
>  Robert Kesterson
>  [log in to unmask]
>



-- 
Neil C Timms