On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Ben Balzer wrote:

> > > 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.

Well, I agree that it blames them, but to my mind this is a long
way from making a clear case.  Also, I don't put toxins and
proteins into the same category.  The alleged manner in which a
foreign protein affects us is via the immune system; this is not
the case for toxins.  Toxicity is also related to dose; there are
toxic and nontoxic doses of the same substance.

> 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".

I would imagine that refined white flour is low in toxins as
well, since so much of the protein and other portions of the germ
are stripped away in the refining.

> 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.

I have ordered this book from Interlibrary Loan, but haven't
received it yet.  Does Liener discuss the toxins in the
cooked/prepared versions of the foods, as compared with the raw
foods?  I ask this because the Price-Pottenger folks make much of
the fact that "traditional" food preparation methods serve
precisely to minimize toxin content of foods.

> > 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.

Antinutrients are yet another category.

> There is a dearth of clinical intervention studies on diets.

That's for sure.

> When I went
> paleo, I had to go high carb- my body was so used to it that I couldn't cope
> otherwise.

If I even attempt a high-carb paleo diet, I gain weight rapidly,
even after more than two years of paleo.  If I start eating dates
and other paleo-sweets, I might as well be eating pasta, as far
as the effect on my weight is concerned.

> > 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.

There's no question about that in my mind.  What I *do* question
-- and I've certainly expressed this before -- is whether the
foreign protein/toxin/antinutrient aspects of Neanderthin
contribute much to its effectiveness, over and above the
probability of it being a moderate-to-low carb diet (You have to
make a special effort to do high-carb Neanderthin) with,
possibly, a better balance of EFAs.

As you say, we have no good intervention trials, but we do have a
multitude of testimonials.  Some time ago, after doing a lot of
archive reading, I noticed that the benefits that people were
crowing about on the Zone list were exactly the same as what they
were saying on the Atkins list, and on this list: weight loss,
cure of gum disease, improved mood, arthritis gone, fibromyalgia
gone, migraines improved, and so on.

It's very possible that such testimonials have no value whatever,
but I am not quite that pessimistic.  I think this large body of
testimonials points to real physiological benefits, but I don't
find in it much to support the claim that Neanderthin's avoidance
of foreign proteins, etc. brings about significant advantages
over the others, all of which go against the Pyramid.  The Zone
allows controlled use of grains, dairy, legumes, and soy.  People
get good results, even excellent results.  In terms of weight
loss, my own experience on the Zone was unquestionably better
than my experience on Neanderthin, for the unmysterious reason
that the Zone controlled my calories and appetite more tightly.
Seduced by the promise of "unlimited quantities" of paleo foods,
when I switched to Neanderthin I began to eat more, and my weight
loss soon stalled, and eventually my weight even began to creep
up again (Not a lot, but some).

I mention this because my current experiment in smaller protein
servings is resulting in meals that look rather Zonish, and I am
losing weight again.  The difference is not about toxins or
antinutrients.  It's about eating 4 or 5 ounce servings of meat
instead of 10 or 12 ounces.

When I started Neanderthin, I indeed hoped that strict adherence
would somehow correct the metabolic tendency to gain weight,
given a caloric surplus, especially in the form of carbs.  I
hoped that I would continue to lose weight without having to be
vigilant about how much I was eating of this or that -- in
exchange for the necessity of being hyper-vigilant about which
foods I was eating at all.  I have to say that it hasn't worked
out that way.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]