On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Wally Day wrote:

> > There is ample evidence that they *didn't* eat them,
> > the
> > implication of which is considerably more than
> > nothing.  Since
> > the premise of this diet is that the best foods are
> > those to
> > which we are adapted by long exposure, and we have
> > less exposure
> > to tomatoes than to grains (and dairy, for that
> > matter), it
> > doesn't make a lot of sense to include tomatoes
> > while excluding
> > grains and dairy.
>
> Sorry to enter into the fray, but I must take
> exception to the preceeding comment. Long term
> adaption should not be the ONLY prerequisite for
> adopting a food. IMO the food must also be shown to
> have deliterious effects on a large population base to
> indicate avoidance.

I have no problem with you or anyone else adopting your own
criteria, but I just want to point out that you are adding to
what we have generally understood as the basis of paleodiet.  In
effect, you are proposing a more restrictive diet.

> Otherwise, a number of foods most
> of us would consider paleo might not be, including
> other fruits besides tomatoes, as well as some veggies
> and fish.

Well, do we want to say that these foods are "not paleo" or that
they are paleo but not very good for us anyway?  Nuts are clearly
paleo, but we have some people here saying that we shouldn't eat
them because they contain anti-nutrients.  That is, we know
something about them that paleolithic people didn't know, and
therefore have reason to avoid them.  This approach, that modern
scientific knowledge "trumps" the principle of paleolithic
availability, is not unreasonable but I think we should be clear
that it represents a different approach.

> There is ample evidence that dairy in
> general, as well as grains and beans, should be
> avoided even if we COULD consider them paleo.

If that is correct then we must abandon the premise that paleo
foods are the best foods, right?  It means that each paleo food
must be evaluated against our current scientific understanding.

> I also question whether tomatoes were "post" grains
> since some researchers believe there were humans on
> this continent 20,000 years (or more) ago. This would
> pre-date the agricultural use of grains. "If" they ate
> tomatoes at that time, that is...

It's true that the date of the first human presence in the
Americas is in dispute.  It's also hard to guess how many of
those ancient tomato-eating native Americans are ancestors of
contemporary people.  But it's really not important, is it?
Tomatoes didn't become a significant part of the human diet until
after they were taken back to Europe and used, just a few
centuries ago.  Even if some people in the Americas were eating
them regularly before that, it wouldn't make much difference if
the premise that we need *hundreds of thousands* of years to
adapt to a food source is correct.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]