-----Original Message-----
From: Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, January 29, 2000 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [P-F] Paleo websites PART 1


>(NOTE: I am breaking this post into 2 parts even though it might not be
>necessary, so as to avoid potential truncation by the listserver.)
>
>
>Kenny Brown writes:
>
>> The following is a very long message. I asked a family friend
>> who has a Ph.D in Nutrition to look over some of the Paleo
>> websites. She passed it to a grad student. And this is what she
>> says. Please don't contact either one of them, I want the
>> chance to clear up some misunderstandings first. Thanks...
>
>My post here is in response to the one referred to above written by Monica
>Machalka (an R.D.-eligible grad student nearing her Masters in Food and
>Nutrition) that was forwarded to the list about three weeks ago by Kenny,
>apparently commenting on and critiquing my paleo interview on the web,
>among other things. Normally I only lurk on this list. However, since in 3
>out of the 4 primary points that were made by Ms. Machalka, information
>and/or paraphrased words were put into my mouth that I did not in fact say
>nor imply, I wanted to comment, if belatedly.
>
>On the website at http://www.beyondveg.com where the interview as well as
>other articles on paleo and/or vegetarian topics by other authors appear,
>we have gotten used to a continuing stream of misrepresentations from
>dietary fanatics of one sort or another, and typically just ignore them
>considering the source. In contrast, I am sure that in Monica's case one
>can trust the misrepresentations (or perhaps just misinterpretations in
>this case) were inadvertent or due to carelessness rather than based in the
>intellectual dishonesty we see so often in reactions we get from
>extremists. It is disappointing, however, that an academically trained
>individual in the field of nutrition would be so careless as to not read
>what they are commenting on carefully before keyboarding a response.
>
>I hope going over the misrepresentations and/or misinterpretations here
>will show why we are so intent on challenging "authoritative" opinions and
>commentary on the Beyond Veg site: Those with an officially credentialed
>education in nutrition can and do make erroneous attributions just like any
>of the rest of us might.
>
>> Regarding the website
>>
>> http://www.nutritionsciencenews.com/NSN_backs/Apr_97/paleolithic.html...
>
>One more preliminary comment here: it's unclear why the above link was
>inserted immediately preceding Monica's comments about my interview, since
>the link takes one instead to a paleo piece written by Jack
>Challem--perhaps it was a simple cut-and-paste error of some sort, maybe
>one by Kenny rather than Monica, I don't know. (Kenny's forward/post was
>also truncated at the end, and it was unclear whether there may have been
>further comments that got chopped off.) Just to clarify, the interview
>actually is located at:
>http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml.
>
>In any event, the discussion about the actual interview (as far as I can
>tell) seems to begin with the subsequent comment that:
>
>> Mr. Nicholson claims that when the agricultural era came about
>> and people were consuming more starchy foods, there was an
>> increase in tooth decay, malnutrition, and infectious diseases.
>> However, not mentioned in the interview, increase number of
>> people living near each other as well as increased life span
>> can also lead to malnutrition and infectious disease. As for
>> tooth decay, fruits are just as likely to cause tooth decay as
>> starchy foods are. Just brush regularly.
>
>Contrary to what is stated above, directly quoted material from the
>interview, which I've reproduced below, explicitly notes the potential role
>of denser human settlement in infectious disease (in addition to the role
>of a more starch-based diet). Further, in her comment about the role of
>life span in malnutrition and infectious disease, Ms. Machalka seems to
>have missed another article of mine on the Beyond Veg website
>(http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml)
>discussing paleopathological data that estimates ancient life spans. This
>data shows that, if anything, Neolithic people apparently lived a bit
>*shorter* lives than Paleolithic people, thus rendering the point about
>increased life span as a potential factor in the incidence of malnutrition
>and infectious disease (while interesting) irrelevant in this context.
>
>(Strictly as an aside--and not to imply Ms. Machalka has necessarily done
>so here: It seems that almost everyone outside paleo circles is all too
>willing to credit, without examination, the myth of those supposed
>Paleolithic brutes [ooga, ooga :^) ] who must surely have been outlived by
>those far more civilized agriculturalists following them who ushered in the
>dawn of the earliest thing we can relate to as REAL civilization. It would
>be interesting to know where this myth got started, since the available
>data doesn't support it.)
>
>Granted, one certainly can't expect someone to read through the entire
>Beyond Veg suite of paleo-related articles and sub-articles in the few
>hours that were taken. (Certainly not without taking periodic time-outs to
>sneak another peek at Ray's book ranking on Amazon.com since one's last
>log-in there. :-) ).
>
>However, the underlying factual oversight here seems to indicate the
>commentary is not based on sufficient familiarity with basic
>paleoanthropological evidence about Paleolithic diet. Otherwise this type
>of inaccurate supposition would not be made in this context. This is
>another problem we find on Beyond Veg with the comments that conventionally
>trained nutritionists often make about Paleo topics--they haven't done
>their homework.
>
>(Lest I single out Monica for special treatment, we often observed this
>same problem in regard to the university-trained nutritionists, R.D.s, and
>even population geneticists who made comments about Paleolithic diet
>evidence on the Sci-Veg list, for instance, before its demise last
October.)
>
>For comparison and to set the record straight, here is what I actually did
>say, which tallies for the most part with what Monica states about
>malnutrition/infectious disease above [CAPS ADDED HERE FOR CLARITY]:
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Remains of fossil humans indicate decrease in health status after the
>Neolithic. In most respects, the changes in diet from hunter-gatherer times
>to agricultural times have been almost all detrimental, although there is
>some evidence we'll discuss later indicating that at least some genetic
>adaptation to the Neolithic has begun taking place in the approximately
>10000 years since it began. With the much heavier reliance on starchy foods
>that became the staples of the diet, tooth decay, malnutrition, and rates
>of infectious disease increased dramatically over Paleolithic times,
>
I read a long time ago a book relating the archeological researches on one
site In Illinois representing a period ,i think of 6000 years. I remember
just few things but the tooth decay, the violence was 2 things which arise
when they switched from a nuts meats based diet to a grain based diet. ( was
it wild rice or corn-bean?) For example when  the grain appeared
,fortification of villages and signs of violent attack on bones showed up. I
have no references for this book but i suppose it not be hard to find
considering it made its way to France and got translated years ago( 15
maybe?)
Anyway it sticked with me!
jean-claude