On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> If a strong correlation isn't a causation, then this would mean
> that you could be able to avoid the real cause, while still
> maintaining the one thing correlated with the disease.

That's right.

> So maybe something *else* as the meat itself causes the diseases.
> Of course then this (real disease-causing) is itself correlated with meat
> eating in a strong way.
> Probably also not by accident, but by an effect of causation.

Maybe.  The correlation could be strong but completely accidental
and avoidable.

For example, Mary recently posted an article showing a
correlation between saturated fat intake of mothers and atopic
sensitization in children.  It's possible that the higher
saturated fat intake was the result of eating cheese, and the
dairy protein caused the atopic sensitization, making the
saturated fat correlation accidental.  Whether this is likely
depends on whether the scientists analyzed the saturated fat
sources separately or not.

> If we assume that a lack of fiber in the diet is the real "cause" of
> colon cancer (a real probability).

Recent studies of fiber and colon cancer have failed to confirm
this hypothesis.

> Todd, you once asked me if i could mention risks or dangers of
> a life in ketosis. Some we have gone through, but one thing came to my mind
> later and i always wanted to mention it.
> (this is not ment to argue against ketosis, but for the sake to comeing
> closer to completeness in possible risk factors).
>
> Well, I mean to come into ketosis you have to leave out several food
> items. That can be a potential danger. Not to get, what is usually found
> together with carbohydrate (easy example Vitamin C).

It depends on how you do it.  It is certainly possible to get an
abundance of nutrients, including vitamin C, without exiting
ketosis.  Of course, you have to know what you're doing.  Even
fair amounts of phytonutrients can be consumed, from low-density
vegetables and high-fat nuts, without exiting ketosis.

> I feel like beeing quoted.
> Much more as real paleolithic diets are assumed to have been
> *very* high in what vegetables have.
> Particularly fiber, vitamins, phytochemicals, antioxidants.
> Also in several more critical foodstuffs like lectins or antioxidants.
> They may be harmful in some context, but may have served a purpose in some
> other context. The million year long consumption of these should make
> paleo-diet interested more conscious of this.

I think this is correct.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]