Good points Todd as usual.
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, 21 October 1999 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [P-F] the Old Guard won't give up without a fight.


> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Ben Balzer wrote:
>
> > > *** Group calls low-carb diet unhealthy
> >
> > I really get a bit put out by people labelling diets high carb and low
carb
> > on the Paleofood list. You can have a Paleodiet with AS MUCH
CARBOHYDRATE as
> > you like- you get it from fruits, root vegetables, dried fruits
> > etc..Neanderthin makes it clear that Neolithic "carbs" ie grains, beans
and
> > cereals are chock full of toxins.
>
> How does Neanderthin make that clear?  What specific toxins, in
> what quantities, are present in white rice, for example?  It
> would be interesting to have a "toxin index" for foods somehow,
> but as far as I know we don't.

Neanderthin makes it clear in that it blames toxins/proteins in Neolithic
foods. I think that white rice probably has the least amount of toxins of
any grain from my reading of Liener's text "Toxic Constituents of Plant
Foodstuffs". His excellent letter on soy toxins is on the toxins page at
soyonlineservice http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/. Yes, I would love a
toxin index of plant foods, and if anyone finds one please let me know.

Liener's text is very heavy and written from an ag science point of view. As
I read it, I was shocked to see the toxins kept coming up in "banned" foods-
those that are inedible raw. If one went through it to come up with a low
toxin diet, one would come up with a paleo diet!!!! There was no toxin index
but there were lists of identified toxins- I may be inaccurate but I think
potatoes and soy had the most followed by wheat and rice didn't have many,
which made me think of all those skinny people in Asia, but such broad
assumptions may be wrong.

>
> If by "paleodiet" above you mean "Neanderthin-compliant diet"
> then I agree that such a diet can have as much carbohydrate as
> you like, but I am not acquainted with any body of evidence that
> any such diet will fail to cause the problems caused by Neolithic
> high-carb diets.

Well, Liener's text is the place to start. Look beyond the maconutrients,
look into the micronurients, but it's the lack of antinutrients that sets
Neanderthin apart.

There is a dearth of clinical intervention studies on diets. When I went
paleo, I had to go high carb- my body was so used to it that I couldn't cope
otherwise. I lost 24 lb, but stabilised and kept on high carb paleo (by
paleo I meant eating to Rays 10 commandments). Now, I'm going high prot,
low-medium carb and weight loss seems to be starting again.

>
> > The point is that Paleo is a LOW TOXIN, HIGH MICRONUTRIENT (vitamin,
mineral
> > antioxidant phytosterol) diet simply because grains etc are high toxin.
low
> > micronutrient foods.
>
> Actually, many grains are very high in micronutrients.  For
> example, when I was searching for sources of folic acid, crude
> wheat germ was the richest source that I found.  The real
> question is whether the disadvantages of the toxins outweigh the
> advantages of the micronutrients.
>
> > IMHO The reason SUPERHEAVYWEIGHTS lose weight on these diets is because
> > superheavyweights are particularly sensitive to Neolithic toxins (this
is a
> > hypothesis only, not proven). Their diets are part way to Paleo. This is
the
> > reason why SOME people achieve good results on any diet- is usually
obvious
> > when you consider their previous diet, their new diet and compare the
two to
> > Paleo diet. The new diet has some element that is more paleo than their
> > previous diet.
>
> It doesn't, however, explain why some people *don't* get the
> desired weight loss, etc., on paleo.

Well, the Pyramid has a success rate of 6%, so if Neanderthin can do better
than that it's an advance.

>
> Todd Moody
> [log in to unmask]