> From:    Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Paleo milk ...again
>
> I agree.  The problem is that it's not always a
> simple matter to
> use that yardstick.  Do we trust epidemiological
> studies?
> Clinical trials?  Case studies?  Field studies?

I truly believe at some point in time each individual
has to forget about epidemiological studies and find
what is best *for him/her*. The old phrase "analysis
to paralysis" is very apropos here.

> You can kill a lactating cow or goat
> or sheep
> with a spear and there will be milk in the udder.
> You can kill a
> calf and there will be milk in the stomach,
> fermented by rennet.

It's possible. A good example might be the ancestors
of the Masai tribe. Very heavy milk drinkers - but
they like it sour. Perhaps they "invented" their own
method of letting bacteria do all the hard digestive
work for them?

> <snip> and neither do we know for a
> fact whether
> they consumed many other things, such as
> strawberries, walnuts,
> and so forth.

Then we are "stuck" with my premise - using paleo as a
starting point and then proceeding from there.

> <snip> Thus, even though we can suppose that
> nuts were
> eaten by paleolithic humans (at least, we have as
> much basis for
> thinking so as we do for many other allegedly paleo
> foods), you
> accept the argument that we should not eat them
> because we now
> have identified anti-nutrients in them.  Is that a
> fair statement
> of your position on this?

Yes (I think). But, I have another question for you.
Does there mere presence of anti-nutrients render a
food "not paleo kosher" for everyone? Or just for
those individuals who cannot tolerate the
anti-nutrients?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com