Hi Neil, 
Your avoidance of the religion/evolution topic seems very sensible. 

In general, I think that our ancestors who left Africa between 75,000 and
83,000 years ago had already developed much of their gastrointestinal
tracts. But we see a number of variations that have evolved since. Retention
of lactase is one. It happened among pastoral cultures. Some of have split
common bile ducts, where bile is emptied into the small intestine at two
separate locations. I have been unable to find whether these are associated
with cultures in which more fat was consumed and would appreciate further
information on this topic. On a smaller scale, I work with people who want
to lose weight. Part of what my clients are asked to do is email daily
measurements of their resting blood pressure and pulse, urinary ketones,
weight, fasting glucose, and a number of other measurements. While a high
fat, ketogenic diet works for many, there are some who require different
approaches. I suspect that most of these differences in needs reflect their
genetic backgrounds and other health issues. Even among those who fare well
on the high fat, ketogenic diet there are enormous variations in carb
tolerance and protein tolerance. These suggest variations that have
developed in the ~80,000 years since most of the world's population left
Africa. The same time frame would have facilitated adaptations among
Africans as well. 


I enjoyed The Vegetarian Myth too. It provided a unique insight into the
vegan/vegetarian perspective. 
    

As for the grains winning, you might be right. But there is a small pocket
of information that suggests that about 80% of learning disabled children
experience significant improvements on a gluten free diet. Since learning
disabilities afflict about 10% of the population, that would suggest that
about 8% of our children would benefit from avoiding gluten. And those
numbers/percentages may be growing. Similarly, about 1% of the population
will have celiac disease and another ~12% will mount IgG reactions to
gluten. Alessio Fasano at the U. of Maryland has recently identified a
separate, innate reaction to gluten experienced by 6% of the population and
he claims that there is no overlap with the selective antibody reactions.
The net result is that somewhere between 21% and 27% of our children are
being harmed by gluten alone. While this information will take time to
emerge (and perhaps be refined to a smaller number) I doubt that parents
will fail to act on their children's behalf if/when they see that there is
something close to a 25% chance that their child could be healthier and
happier on a gluten free diet. You may be correct, and the grains may win,
but I'm hanging onto my faith in humanity that says that we will relinquish
grains when we realize how much they harm us.

I absolutely agree with your position on bench marks. They are based on the
assumption that the general population is healthy. 

I will look up "Sex at Dawn". Thanks for the suggestion. 
best wishes, 
Ron  

-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Neil Timms

I'm interested in your comment about "whole one-diet-fits-all Paleo paradigm
is easily discredited by evolution but not Creationism."

I may not be so well informed about paleo culture but I've taken strict
paleo to be a subset of what is healthy to eat. That set intersects with
other ways of eating but some non strict paleo foods
(dairy) may not be harmful to some due to adaptation (here I mean by our
genetic ancestors given adaptation takes generations). So I can thrive on
strict paleo and still thrive on foods that I have become adapted to. Most
of Northern European descent will have some capacity to tolerate Dairy for
example and apparently Grains - although from what I can see Grains will
always win one way or another given the range of ailments that may appear
and sometimes later in life. I think that the 'Vegitarian Myth' makes a very
good case for Grains winning the evolutionary battle overall - grains will
eventually finish humans off one way or another.

For myself my Dairy tolerance has diminished as I've aged - I can still cope
with butter, Creme Fraiche, (high fat, and fermented) but even a full fat
yoghurt will cause me unpleasant symptoms now. When I was younger I could
drink cows milk by the pint but not for some years.  I think epigenetics is
useful for understanding why this might be - on that point, the general
scientific view was I believe that most of the human genome was junk; yet
apparently not. I'm willing to wager that as time goes on we will find out
that more and more of the 'junk' is involved in gene expression than was
previously thought.
Gene expression is moderated by noncoding DNA and this expression is in some
cases time programmed (e.g. infants and milk). What a strange world we
inhabit when we don't expect a calf to suckle cows milk after weening and
yet think it's fine to feed our own infants and adults the milk of a
different species.

I think that another issue that effects everything is that most if not all
the human benchmarks for health, drugs, and disease have been established
using deficient populations. Deficient populations because their diet and
lifestyle was not correctly human in the first place.
Establishing a baseline for optimal human health will always involve some
guesswork and interpretation.

And regarding sex I recommend "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of
Modern Sexuality" Paleo may not just be about food.

Bit of a ramble.

Cheers

Neil



--
Neil C Timms