Let me preface my remarks by saying that I have read several postings from
this group, and I think very highly of it.  I do believe that the
Paleolithic style of eating is an enormous improvement over the mainstream
diet prevalent in this country; good, fresh, whole foods should definitely
be emphasized.

However, I think that many individuals subscribe to an orthodox view that
excludes foods that are not bad for most people, and which are in fact
potentially nutritious.  Here are a few topics that interest me.  I would
love to hear responses:

1) Butter: This is one that is difficult to justify the exclusion of.  If
you read books by individuals who have weighed in with significant
contributions on nutrition, such as Ea
des, Schwarzbein, Lutz, Atkins,
Enig/Fallon, McCullough and others, butter is universally accepted, if not
enthusiastically endorsed.  It is rich in fat-soluble vitamins, contains
only trace amounts of lactose and casein and is very safe for frying.  Some
have suggested that it even has anti-carcinogenic properties.  Even Audette
states specifically that butterfat is not the bad aspect of dairy products.
Some, such as Cordain, have argued on the grounds that butter has a high
cocentration of SFAs, but this must be taken in context.  Yes, butter is
roughly 65% SFA, but what is the optimal level in the diet as a whole?  25%
of total fat content is often cited as a good percentage for SFAs (and this
is fairly low to begin with), and this can easily be accomplished while
still consuming substantial amounts of butter and cream.  Would coconut
milk and oil be ruled out entirely?  Cavement did not have bu
tter, but nor
did they have chicken eggs.  Both are very healthy animal by-products.  I
always purchase organic butter at the store.

2) Meats & Fish.  Here I tend to support the view that lean, organic meat
and fatty fish are the best.  Ideally, it would be game-meat that roams
around and nibbles on grass, but even places like Whole Foods Market don't
offer that.  What do you people think of organic (i.e. from a health foods
store) bacon, sausage and other fatty meat?  Personally, I avoid it,
because of the extra salt and other preservatives, and the fact that pigs
are scavenger animals that don't offer CLA or ATP like red meat.  Even
fatty beef or lamb is unwelcome on my table because the fat is induced my
unnatural hormones and other unhealthy farming practices - do people agree
or not?  Here is another example of why the saturated fat: good or bad?
debate somewhat misses the point.  Bacon
 grease has a much lower SFA than
butter, but is still a much lower-quality fat, in my opinion (although both
suffer from a somewhat high amount of palmitic acid).  Personally, I love
the taste of these things that I don't eat, but I am not sacrificing too
much, cuz I thoroughly enjoy lean cuts of beef, skinless chicken and canned
fish (sardines, tuna, salmon).  I strive to vary my protein selections: how
important is this?

3) Tubers.  Again, I have to break with the Paleo dogma.  First of all,
evidence suggests that some tubers and root vegetables were eaten in Paleo
times, but admittedly, they were probably somewhat of an occasional treat
in most cases.  Potatoes in the wild are toxic, but the fact of the matter
is that those that we eat are not.  This is a classic example of the "you
have to cook it to eat it, therefore it is unhealthy" philosophy, that I
think leads to peop
le getting carried away.  Sweet potatoes are packed with
Vitamin A and anti-oxidants, and are a wonderful addition to a meal.  A
good, baked potato is a naturally-occuring vegetable, quite different from
a loaf of bread or bowl of fettuccini (spelling?).  Yes, spuds are high in
carbs, but this is a separate issue - not unique from bananas, raisins,
etc.  Does anyone believe that potatoes actually cause MS or autism?

4) Legumes.  Here I have mixed feelings, and I would love to get some
feedback.  It seems to me as though chickpeas and legumes are really seeds
and have existed for a long time, and are not problematic.  Also, I believe
that Valencia peanuts from the Southwest or any other peanuts from a hot
environment (like Africa, where they originated) will be free from
aflatoxin, and thus healthy.  Whole Foods sells all-natural peanut butter
that is exactly that.  Beans - hard to say.  I think t
hat the issue of
phytates and lectins may be overstated, but it's hard to know.  Beans
definitely do cause a nuisance with the digestive system, but that doesn't
make them bad per se.  Many people swear by beans.  What was the extent of
legume consumption back in ancient time?

5) Eggs: Is everyone (who is not AA-sensitive) pro-eggs?  Does scrambling,
and possibly to a lesser extent frying, cause a real problem in terms of
damaging the cholesterol?  I get organic eggs, but I wonder how much free-
roaming the chickens really do.

6) Other dairy.  I really don't eat cheese currently, but is this
justified.  The much-ballyhooed foreign casein proteins are suspect, but
what does the evidence really say?  Are farmer's or feta cheese better?  I
don't like the large amount of salt in cheese, also.  Cheese is heat-
treated, and I've heard to it referred to as a damaged-fat as a result C but
is it fundamentally different from butter in that regard?  What about whey
protein?  What do you say to counter those that use their protein shakes
(sometimes including casein) who say that whey has BV of 104 and may even
boost the immune system?  I tell them that they're consuming a fake, human-
engineered, pseudo-food, but am I really right to say that?  Any thoughts
on organic sour cream (15 carbs by energy) or organic cream cheese or
organic cottage cheese?

7) Fruit and honey: Our fruits have been engineered to be sweeter and
juicier.  Is this a big deal?  How many pieces a day seems appropriate to
you?  Is organic produce really that much preferrable to non-organic?
Maybe I'm biased because there were worms in my dried fruit from Whole
Foods one time, but I've heard conflicting things on this topic.  Honey?

Other deviations that I make are cashews, expeller-pressed
 canola oil.

Then there's the whole overarching question of macronutrient ratios.
Here's something that I would be VERY curious to hear someone explain.
Clearly, it would be absurd to pinpoint a number when dealing with a vast
array of population groups, but I have seen Fat-Protein-Carb ratios - cited
in emails on this newsgroup - of something like 13-33-54, or 21-34-45 (this
one I've seen multiple times).  Others have it at more like 30-30-40 (the
Zone diet ratio).  I personally have a hell of a time understanding how you
arrive at any such number.  Eaton, Cordain, or anyone, I would love to have
you explain that.  You don't get to eat any potatoes, few if any legumes,
the fruits are allegedly lower in carbs, no grains or refined sugar, and
yet you are supposed to get about 240-300 carbs a day if you eat 2400
calories (which isn't a very high level).  What am I missing?  I am around