On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 13:35, Eva Hedin  wrote:

>> (a) genuinely Paleo?, or
>>
>> (b) healthy?
>>
>> Makes a big difference.  Don't forget - a
>> Paleo eater in the Paleolithic
>> wouldn't have known what an omega-6 was!
>>
>> Keith
>
>I'd really like you to expound on that. I thought that the
>essence of the idea of eating paleo was that paleo is
>healthy and if it isn't paleo it isn't healthy. Am I wrong?
>Eva

Erik has already provided an excellent answer.

But to add to it here are two examples from the Neolithic (we know for
sure that these are accurate; something we can't say about truly
Paleolithic instances.)

The first example of paleo eating which was not healthy is the disease
kuru occurring in the Fore (pronounced 'foray') people in Papua New
Guinea.  This was fatal but people kept on eating the warm brains of their
recently deceased relatives and so contracting a disease like CJD.  (They
attributed the affliction to spirits).  More info at:

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/SupernatKuru86.htm

The second example comes from Weston Price's travels in South America
where he reports on the use of coca as a drug to enable porters to carry
massive loads barefoot through freezing temperatures at very high
altitudes.

Neither warm human brains nor coca would be considered healthy, but they
are Paleo.

On the other hand, I think most people on this list would agree that the
statement "if it isn't paleo it isn't healthy" is a good rule of thumb.

Keith