A while back Sarah Mason, on the symposium list, said that we should
rather be looking at what creates good health by looking at current
markers, rather than trying to sift through scant evidence from
thousands of years ago. I think a combination of the two should be
used. On the one hand, looking at paleolithic evidence highlights
problems such as the agricultural grains that are otherwise very
difficult to expose. On the other hand, by looking at nutritional
markers we can highlight deficiencies in our diet. By combining the
two approaches we can identify the nutrients and then find appropriate
sources. A good start would be the RDA list. Imperfect as it may be,
it is a start. If we run through the list of nutrients and check them
off on our diet, then I would hope that there is at least a
statistically significant chance that we are getting all known
nutrients and the as yet unknown nutrients and their cofactors in a
reasonable proportion. This does not mean taking pills. They don't
qualify on the cofactors, proportions and unknown nutrient scores.
Making sure the sources of these nutrients are paleo acceptable is the
next check. In the same way I would look at the composition of human
milk. There has to be significance in that composition ?

I think the EFA's and calcium are good examples of markers that help
lead us to correct diet. eg. In "Nutrition and Evolution" there is a
case cited of orphaned lion cubs that were transferred to a zoo by one
of the authors.  One by one, over time, the lions hind legs collapsed
and they were paralysed. X-rays showed that the zoo lions' bones were
translucent, while wild lions' bones were dense. The bone space
through which the spinal cord passes was puffed up and narrowed,hence
the paralysis. It was discovered that feeding the lions on meat only
had resulted in too much phospherous and insufficient calcium in the
diet. Lions actually need rib bones, which they can crush and obtain
calcium. I wonder how pemmican, as a 'perfect food', relates to this ?

So, by only looking at a macro paleo picture we can run the risk of
becoming nutrient deficient and by only looking at the micro nutrient
picture we run the risk of saying " we need B vitamins and wheat germ
is a good source, so we need 5 servings per day". 8^)

Gary





_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com