On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, T. Martin wrote:

> Todd Moody wrote:
> > I don't know Ray's take on this, but in a way it's *obvious* that
> > some people have evolved the ability to thrive on non-paleo
> > foods.  The Japanese are the longest-lived people on the planet
> > and, although their diet is quite different from most Western
> > diets, it includes plenty of non-paleo items, such as rice, soy,
> > and noodles.  The Swiss are also quite long-lived, despite a diet
> > high in dairy products, especially cheeses.  The celebrated
> > "Mediterranean" diet makes use of goat cheese and whole-grain
> > flours.  At least *some* ovo-lacto vegetarians enjoy long and
> > healthy lives (as, in fact, John Harvey Kellogg did), even though
> > many seemingly encounter problems.
>
> Playing devil's advocate for a sec: is it possible that these peoples
> would do even better if they eliminated the offending foods?

It's possible, I guess, but we have no reason to believe it.
That is, I don't know of any evidence that "pure"
hunter-gatherers are healthier or longer-lived than, say, the
Japanese.

> There
> are no doubt a number of factors responsible for their longevity
> relative to Americans, which I'm sure you could enumerate as easily
> as I could (or more so). Putting the question in my first sentence
> another way, maybe if these people lived more like Americans, their
> apparent ability to resist the negative effects of neolithic foods
> would fade.

An excellent point.  Ravnskov
(http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-25775/index.htm) mentions studies
that show that Japanese who emigrated to the US were better off
adopting American diet but keeping the Japanese customs and
lifestyle than the other way around.

> So, if there's any merit to what I'm saying, maybe your first
> sentence should be changed to: "obviously some people have
> the ability to live long and avoid CHD, despite neolithic elements
> in their diet. This ability may due to any or all of several
> factors: (a) evolutionary change, allowing them to make better use
> of neolithic foods, and avoid negative effects, (b) benefits from
> other dietary factors, which differ from the standard American
> diet (e.g. lots of fish for Japanese), or (c) other lifestyle
> factors, like more exercise (or more wine for the French).

Fair enough.  I suspect that all three play a role.

Of course, in the absence of real knowledge of how these factors
work, it might be *safest* to stay close to paleolithic diet.
For example, I don't know if *anyone* can be healthy for long on
a vegan diet.  It's possible, but it seems to me that the odds
are against it.  When it comes to things such as dairy and
grains, the situation is still more obscure, because the benefits
of eliminating these foods might not be immediate or obvious.
That does not mean they are not there, however.  Nevertheless,
some people would probably be avoiding them for no reason.

It would be nice if blood type or some other clear markers were
available to indicate one's level of dietary adaptation, but
there doesn't seem to be nearly enough data yet.

The other issue, of course, is the problem of maladaptation to
paleodiet.  Is that what Karsten Andersen's hyperlipidemia
showed, or was something else going on?  It would be nice to have
answers to that question too.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]