On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Wally Day wrote:

> 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.

It's very appropriate, but sometimes difficult to apply.  Since
the topic is dairy, I'll say that I rarely consume dairy
products, since starting paleo over two years ago.  I have,
however, experimented with various dairy foods on occasion.  I
notice that consumption of ordinary milk quickly causes a buildup
of phlegm, but not all dairy products cause this.  Feta cheese,
for example, doesn't appear to have any unpleasant effects at
all.  Parmesan and mozzarella cheese don't seem to be a problem
either, but swiss cheese does cause this reaction.  This is
informal self-experimentation, of course, and it's very possible
that my results are inaccurate.

If I am guided simply by how foods make me *feel* or by
discernible adverse reactions of any sort then there are
many non-paleo foods that I could add back into my diet.
It begins to be something of a guessing game.

> 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?

Indeed.  Fermentation pre-digests the lactose.

> > <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?

Personally, I do not think that the mere presence of
anti-nutrients is a sufficient reason to reject a food.  An
anti-nutrient is a substance that interferes with the utilization
of a nutrient, so obviously we don't want that to happen.  I
think, however, that nuts are sufficiently nutritious that the
mere presence of anti-nutrients is not decisive.  In a recent
thread it was pointed out that even phytic acid, which is a
mineral-blocking anti-nutrient, has desirable properties as well.

If "paleo kosher" means eating what paleolithic people plausibly
ate, then the mere presence of anti-nutrients is obviously not
enough to disqualify a food, since it wouldn't have deterred them
unless it made the food inedible.

I don't think anti-nutrients are something that people tolerate
or not.  It would be better to think of lectins and peptides in
these terms.  Some people are severely allergic to strawberries,
so much so that eating one can be life-threatening.  I see no
reason to conclude that strawberries are off-limits for the rest
of us.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]