On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, James Crocker wrote:

> >From an evolutionary perspective, being able to eat more calories
> >without gaining fat does not make a lot of sense.  Since fat is
> >how energy is stored, it seems that being able to store fat
> >readily would be an advantage,
> Exactly, which is why extra calories on a paleo diet will make you
> fatter, just like on any other diet.  I don't believe the healthier types
> of foods on paleo makes this simple principle of input, output, and
> accumulation go away.  If people want to argue that they can eat all they
> want without gaining any weight, how advantageous would their diet be in
> the wild?  No spare tire to get you through the hard times...?

Well, the principle is simple; the reality may be a bit less so.
The input/output principle does not imply that the relation
between the two is linear.  We have recently discussed this on
the lowcarb list, and there is at least one study that shows that
people on a ketogenic diet do not begin to gain weight until
their fat intake is *way* past their usual caloric maintenance
point.  That is, the people did not begin to gain weight until
they were eating more than 600 grams of fat per day (5400
calories).  That was a large caloric surplus, and it's not clear
what was happening to the extra fat.

As far as I know, however, this effect is peculiar to ketogenic
diets.  I know of no evidence that such resistance to weight gain
is characteristic of a non-ketogenic paleodiet.  Indeed, my own
experience is that body fat levels are as sensitive to calories
on such a diet as they are on other mixed diets.

Even on a ketogenic diet, then, there is a caloric ceiling after
which there is increase of body fat.  For reasons not clear, this
ceiling appears to be higher on a ketogenic diet, at least for
some people.

> >I think it is a mistake to place all legumes under a single
> >interdict, just as it would be a mistake to think of all berries
> >as edible simply because many berries are.  It would be more
> >useful to find out which legumes ancient HGs did eat or could
> >have eaten.
> >
> I agree entirely.  Gathering with a sharp stick seem much easier and more
> successful than hunting.  Regardless of that opinion, edible goods in the
> raw state certianly fit this definition of paleo.  Your points are really
> very good here Todd.

The relative ease of hunting and gathering must depend greatly on
the particulars of the environment, the season, and so on.  But
unless the principle is really "naked and *stupid* with a sharp
stick" we can suppose that simple low-tech methods of making
foods edible were recognized and used by HGs for a very long
time.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]