On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Wade H. Reeser wrote:

> That would be great if this was a "natural food" list but it is
> specifically a paleolithic diet list which would seem to preclude alot of
> the food Amadeus is eating.  He can eat it if he wants but I take exception
> at his discussing it on this list.

I think Amadeus's diet is more unpaleolithic for what it excludes
than for what it includes, but the same could probably be said
for many of the rest of us.

> I think it is a stretch to call modern animals "very" different and "very"
> un-paleo.  Certainly the cow more resembles its ancestors than all of our
> modern fruits and vegetables.

What makes this certain?

> It seems that fat is highly prized in most
> traditional cultures and people went out of their way to secure it.  Inuit
> would let their dogs eat the lean parts of animals they killed and focus on
> the fatty meats.  (Fat of the Land, V steffanson)

But the point has been made repeatedly, by experts such as
Cordain and Eaton, that the *kind* of fats eaten by these people
is significantly different from what most of us "supermarket
hunters" are getting.

> Most of the critisisms
> of beef on this list tend to be speculative and backed by not much more
> than the hot air behind them.  We need to be more exact.

In reference to the point about fat above, scientific support for
the criticisms has been given repeatedly.  Amadeus has frequently
offered detailed nutritional analysis of various foods, and cites
research to back his claims.  I don't always agree with his
conclusions but I respect his methods more than the seemingly
endless litany of references to Stefannson.  Stefannson's work
was important but he didn't have the last word, nor are his
assertions immune to criticism.

> I would prefer
> range fed beef but dont mind corn fed.  The fact that the domesticated
> animals have more fat does not seem to be a problem.

It depends on what you count as problematic.  The matter of
elevated cholesterol may be (and is) controversial but I think it
is premature to dismiss it out of hand.  Ironically, the authors
of Neanderthin do not seem to think it is irrelevant.

> Again, Inuit eat 80%
> calories by fat.  What are we worrying about?  Are the altered fat profiles
> in beef significant?

It sure looks that way.  And we are not Inuit.  There is
scientific evidence that the Inuit are metabolically *different*.

> Probably just eliminating
> vegetable oils and eating fish a couple times a week would be sufficient.

Eating fish a couple of times a week is not particularly paleo.

> What else are we talking about?  Muscle is muscle, organs are organs and
> have changed little in evolution.  The same cannot be said of different
> vegetable and fruit hybrids.

Regrettably, some of those organs, such as the liver, are also
places where toxins are accumulated, as are the body oils of
fish.  This further complicates the choices of someone who wants
to emulate a paleo diet as closely as possible.

> >Maybe this mailing list should be for Neanderthin following people only,
> >like the charter says.
>
> Imagine that.

Actually, the charter *doesn't* say that, or else I wouldn't be
here.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]