> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paleolithic Eating Support List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carrie Coineandubh
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Cooking Fats - was Re: Christmas Pudding
> 
> ...
> 
> *** Not for you, no. I have seen people who could not 
> tolerate cooked milk 
> tolerate raw milk just fine. 

Have there been any studies on that? I was unable to find any.

> *** In their defense, they do not recommend feeding cow's milk to 
> babies--Fallon is adamant about breast milk, but offers the 
> material you 
> quoted to mothers unable to produce enough.
> 

Yes, they admit that raw cow's milk is not as healthy for humans as human
breast milk. The debate comes in on whether it is still healthy enough to
include in the human diet for people who do not need it to survive. 

> 
> *** Raw milk is not healthy for everyone. As for Fallon and 
> Enig's writings: 
> Is it rapid evolutionary adaptation? In part, yes. They 
> speculate that in 
> isolated populations that depend on milk products for protein, if 
> lactose-tolerant folks had 1% more kids than intolerant, the 
> population 
> could go from having 5% lactose-tolerant individuals to 60% in 400 
> generations. More importantly, though, they say that the majority of 
> traditional herding societies ferment milk products before 
> consuming them, 
> which predigests casein and breaks down lactose. Therefore, 
> even people who 
> can't tolerate milk do fine with yoghurt, kefir, clabber, 
> etc. 

I do think that scientists are finding out that evolution can proceed more
rapidly than they had expected. So Fallon & Enig's argument is that
processing biologically inappropriate foods through such means as
fermentation can make them digestible. Would this hold for dogs too? Paleo
advocate S Boyd Eaton used this argument in his book years ago and thought
that some amount of fermented soy and other such foods might be OK as a
regular part of a diet, but later reportedly changed his mind to go along
more with Cordain's exclusion of legumes, dairy and grains from the diet
(except for 1-2 "open meals" per week in Cordain's case). The idea was that
by fermenting foods like soy you make them less toxic as well as more
digestible.

> > Which guru are you referring to? The only source I can 
> think of that = 
> > might advocate an energy bar would be The Paleo Diet for Athletes
> 
> *** You've caught me with most of my books still in boxes, 
> but if memory 
> serves, I'm thinking of the Eades. Perhaps I'm confused about 
> the various 
> "stages", but it seemed that they recommend/allow products 
> (soy!)  made from 
> non-paleo ingredients to achieve something similar to our "cave man" 
> forbears.
> 

It may not be the Eades. Michael Eades wrote, "We wrote about the potential
health dangers of soy in The Protein Power LifePlan in 2000."
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmd/archives/2006/01/soy_what.html.

As I mentioned, Eaton originally thought some soy was OK, but has since
apparently changed his mind. Could it be him you're thinking of? As far as I
know, none of the following Paleo or near-Paleo gurus currently advocates a
soy energy bar--Audette, Cordain, Eaton, or the Eades.

> > I examine each claim on its merits,...
> 
> *** Me too! That, and whether I can get my diabetic husband 
> to go for it. If 
> that means eating some foods from 10,000 years ago instead of 
> 100,000 years 
> ago, so be it, as long as I can avoid the stuff created in 
> the last 100 
> years or so.
> 
> --Carrie

Even if raw dairy is bad, you're still doing far better than most Americans.