----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [P-F] the Old Guard won't give up without a fight.


> 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've just hear of "Handbook of Naturally Occurring Food Toxicants", edited
by Milsoslav Rechcigl
and published by CRC Press - (1983) and will try to source it. Hopefully
easier toread than Liener.

BTW A superb reference is Eaton, Eaton and Konner, .Paleolithic nutrition
revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on its nature
and implications European J Clin Nutr1997;51:207-16 A must have for any
paleo collection. Not about toxins but about nutrients etc.

Neanderthin is quite non-specific about toxins, I'll agree. I've taken the
toxins bit further with Liener (BTW if you only read chapters 1,2 and 3,
you'll have the best of it. The chapter on lathyrism is interesting). In CH
1 Liener points out that mankind had a boon 10,000 years ago when the
cooking of inedible plants was food to yield edible food, and this opened up
a whole new variety of foods. This increased our food supply. I don't think
he points out all the advantages but there are many- eg long storage of
grains in the prerefrigeration era. Anyhow, the inedible becomes edible-
this turns out to be due to the destruction (incomplete) of toxins, rahter
than just making it more digestible.

Leiener's text is a heroic review, exhaustive and exhausting, these toxins
are real and there are hundreds of scientific papers to back it up.

The major toxin groups of protease inhibitor and lectin are proteins. Some
toxicity is dose related, other is more fickle. For example lectins can
attack immune cells T-cell lymphocyes that have a controlling effect on the
immune system. in Loren Cordain's paper "Cereal Grains: Humanity's
Double-Edged Sword"(I think you'd have this Todd, otherwise mail me
personally), he points out how something (I think it was lectins) disrupt
T-cell function. Then if you get a particular virus there is a clear
mechanism that can result in insulin dependent diabetes (the juvenile form
rather then the middle aged form).(anyhow the paper is pretty heavy and
requires grounding in immunology/biological sciences).

Cordain also mention secondary metabolites- half processed biochemicals in
seeds etc that are held in suspended animation until the seed sprouts. The
implication being that these metabolites are unnatural and harmful, but no
detail.
>
> > 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.

Not sure
>
> > 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.

This become clear. He is not trying to sell any paricular diet, but he makes
a great advertisement for paleo!! A number of important toxins are not
inactivated by cooking he points out  but usually by referring to the
published results. A number of toxins disappear when grains are sprouted.
traditional methods do that- thay also combine foods (neoltihic) with good
effects- eg traditional fares often have a mixure of a grain and a
bean/lentil providing the full band of amino acids.

>
> > > 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.

That's a broad term for bad things in your diet, such as protease
inhibitors, lectins, phytates etc.. I imagine it indicates that toxin is a
bit too strong a term. Paleo turns out to be very very low in antinutrients-
especailly if you avoid nuts as i do because of theire protease inhibitors
etc (can't remember much detail on how much but I'd bet it's less than
grains)

> > 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.

There are a multitude of benefits on paleo, so it's best to categorise them:

 Nutrients:
 --a. macronutrients i fat- fatty acid profile is superior, ii protein
intake is higher, amino acid quality better,iii carbohydrate- even a high
carb paleo is low glycemic- ie little sugar surges, therefore little
hyperinsulinaemia
--b. micronutrients  i vitamins- defintiely a much better profile (see Eaton
Eaton Konner)
    ii minerals- much better iii electrolytes- low salt high potassium
    iv antioxidants- very high amount, very broad variety (very important)
    v phytosterols- high, esp in root vegetables. Not as high as many seeds,
seed oils, but no-one knows which phytosteols are the most important-
naturally I tip those in paleo foods as being the best.
--c antinutrients i protease inhibitors very low ii lectins very low

Immune system
Mainly from absence of lectins but also from the nutrient angle- how can you
expect your white blood cells to work well if you don't feed them properly.
Other angles may apply.

Exercise

You can choose which benefit you think is most important- it probably is
different for everyone. I think superheavyweights are probably
extrasensitive to antinutrients, but it's just a hunch.

I chose this diet because of Occam's Razor- it's only based on one
assumption that can be stated numerous ways- eg The original diet of man is
the best; the most natural diet is the best, etc. You know my favourite way
which is my signature "The ideal diet for any animal is that which it eats
in the wild. Humans are no exception."  Do you think that's a valid use of
Occam's Razor?

I'd heard of Paleolithic nutrition in passing 10 years ago. 7 years ago I
went onto a low fat high carb diet with  good result initially. Earlier this
year it was painfully obvious that the Pyramid diet was failing me and I
went looking on the net and eventually did a search for paleolithic diet,
and got Neanderthin and met you guys. 11kg=24lb loss and still going.

Ben Balzer
[log in to unmask]

>
> Todd Moody
> [log in to unmask]