> Date:    Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:21:00 -0700
> From:    Loren Cordain <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Fitness and Diet
> [much deleted]
> Consequently, modern human genomes (particularly in those populations
> with the greatest exposure to agriculture) are not identical to our
> paleolithic ancestors, and some of these slight genetic differences may
> have important health ramifications for modern man.   However, basic
> human nutritional needs seem not to have varied significantly since
> paleolithic times.   All humans require similar ranges of both macro and
> micronutrients and all human groups have similar anatomical,
> physiological and endocrine functions in regard to diet and nutrition.
> The reason for these similarities is because of our common evolutionary
> experience - we were all hunter gatherers dependent upon wild plants and
> animals - and these dietary selective pressures shaped our present day
> nutritional requirements.

A somewhat belated response and query...

As a result of the fact that attempting to follow a paleolithic
diet has resulted in seriously elevated LDL cholesterol in my own
case, I have been trying to understand the extent to which the
reasoning above may or may not shed light on the problem.

In his recent book "Eat Right 4 Your Type", naturopathic
physician Peter D'Adamo argues that the appearance of the ABO
blood groups mark the emergence of populations with significantly
different dietary adaptations.  Type A appeared about 15,000
years ago; the B and AB types more recently, during historic
times.  Although D'Adamo's theories have much to do with the
body's immune response to dietary lectins, I shall not pursue
that aspect here (other than to note that some interesting
messages on this list concerning "molecular mimicry" lend at
least some plausibility to his idea).  But D'Adamo also claims
that it is well known that type As have generally lower levels of
gastric acid, making them less able to digest animal protein.  He
asserts that they also have the lowest levels of the enzyme
alkaline phosphatase, which creates a problem for breaking down
dietary cholesterol.  I have been unable to verify these claims,
but there does seem to be ample evidence that blood types are
correlated with different health problems.

I am puzzled by the fact that some people can go to a
meat-dominated paleolithic style diet and experience actual
improvement in their blood lipids while others, such as myself,
find that they worsen.  Perhaps the classic demonstration of this
puzzle is the Bellevue experiment of 1928 in which Vilhjalmur
Stefansson and Karsten Andersen ate only meat for a year.  A
study of two people can hardly be the basis for generalizations,
but it is nevertheless interesting that Stefansson's total
cholesterol dropped slightly during the year while Andersen's
climbed all the way to 800, but returned quickly to normal levels
after the conclusion of the experiment.  We don't know HDL/LDL
ratios, unfortunately.  We also know that Stefansson favored
lamb, while Andersen favored beef.

Anyway, the question that I am leading up to is this: Even though
the basic nutritional needs of all humans are the same, is there
much evidence to support the contention that some populations are
more adapted to agricultural diets, and perhaps somewhat
disadapted to hunter/gatherer diets, than others?  Blood type
could be a marker for such adaptation/disadaptation, or perhaps
there are other markers.

Ref: Clarence Lieb, MD, The effects on human beings of a twelve
months' exclusive meat diet.  JAMA, July 6, 1929, 20-22.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]