On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Gary Ditta wrote:

> Without getting into all the evils/bogeyman aspects of SF, I'm curious why
> a correspondingly low SF intake (approximating it as best you can) isn't
> taken to be a key component of paleofood eating based simply on adherence
> to the past.

For a dissenting opinion, see the article by Mary Enig and Sally
Fallon that was posted to the Paleodiet Symposium a few weeks
ago.  If you go to the Paleodiet archive link at
www.panix.com/~paleodiet and search on "enig" you should find it.
Enig and Fallon specifically criticize Eaton's data and
conclusions.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]