----- "Lynnet Bannion" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:22:37 -0700, william <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> 
> 
> > How about,instead of a list of hypothetical diets, something like: 
> > 
> > If it did not exist in paleolithic age, it is not paleolithic. 
> This leaves very little that we can eat. Even most forms of meat 
> available to us 
> today were not available in paleo times. The wild deer and rabbits in 
> this country 
> wouldn't last a week if they were the only food. 

That's correct. The domesticated animal upon which we rely for virtually all of our meat didn't exist, so unless we use william's rule in the most generic sense, i.e., "meat in general," we'd have little or nothing to eat. And of course, if we are going to say "meat in general" then by parity of reasoning we'd also say "plants in general" are paleo, which would give no guidance at all to choosing plant foods. 

> > If it does harm it is not paleolithic. 
> There were PLENTY of harmful plants in paleo times. (And plenty of 
> harmful animals, 
> though that's in a different sense.) 

The problem here is that "harm" is too simplistic a concept to use for this purpose. Virtually all plant foods contain so-called "secondary compounds" that are, to some extent, harmful: toxins and antinutrients. But of course they also contain nutrients. Indeed, what makes a plant food *edible* is that it has relatively low concentrations of secondary compounds, but not necessarily zero. And there's no evidence that paleo people avoided all plant foods. Whether *we* should avoid all plant foods is a separate question. Clearly, the people at the ZIOH web site think we should, and william thinks we should. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that people who reject all plant foods are healthier than those who don't, and also no evidence that they are less healthy. It's an interesting dispute, but it's simply wrong to insist that a paleo diet must reject all plant foods. Therefore, for those who do choose to eat them, guidance is needed to make choices. Just because one chooses to eat plant foods, it doesn't follow that anything goes. 

> > If it destroys nutrients it is not paleolithic. 
> Famine food even in paleo times probably had downsides, including 
> antinutrients. 
> If the hunting is bad, they ate the veg instead of starving to death. We 
> know that 
> because there still are humans. 

I suppose that this is william's way of saying that cooking is not paleolithic. He's wrong, of course. Cooking obviously is paleolithic. Again, william wants to use his personal preferences as definitive of what is and isn't paleo. Certainly, we can and do debate whether cooking is a good thing, but there is simply no debate about it being paleo, since it existed in the paleolithic era. 

> > You might check on the biologist's claim that mammals live to 7 time 
> > their age of maturity; ours is said to be 32, so any so-called food that 
> > would reduce this lifespan (224) is not paleo. 
> Our age of maturity is in the range of 12-18, not 32. 15x7 = 105, a 
> good age. Perhaps 32 is supposed to be the "age of reason" though there 
> are billions 
> of counter-examples. 

Correct. In this context, "maturity" refers to reproductive maturity, i.e., puberty. Humans are sexually mature at puberty. This does raise an interesting point about lifespan, however. It's well know that the age of sexual maturity has dropped in the 20th century, particularly in women. There is a good chance that this is an insulin effect, yet another result of carbohydrate excess. Although lifespan hasn't diminished--it has increased--this seems to be more a result of medical technology and tertiary care than anything else. 

At risk of getting off-topic, I found this rather lengthy video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM , quite interesting. Dr. Lustig isn't advocating anything that we would recognize as paleo, but his comments about fructose are quite eye-opening. In particular, I am intrigued by the fact that fructose downregulates leptin, the hormone that inhibits appetite. In addition, it is known to cause insulin resistance. Ordinary sucrose is 50% fructose, and high fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose--not a significant difference. One is as bad as the other. But fructose is, of course, quite paleo. It is found in naturally occurring fruits and berries, eaten by humans and hominids forever. Since, however, these foods were only available in limited amounts, especially in the wild variants of these foods, and for limited times throughout the year, the paleolithic fructose intake was necessarily small, though not zero. It illustrates the point, however. Fructose really is harmful, and it really is paleo. But its harmfulness depends on dosage. Much as we may not like to complicate the paleo concept with any kind of "counting" or rationing, fructose is a clear example of why we have to. Certainly, we can say that any and all fructose should be avoided. That is precisely what Dr. Harris at the PaNu site does say. But he doesn't say that doing so is paleolithic, for the very good reason that it isn't. Drastically *limiting* fructose consumption would be paleo, but for those of us who are already metabolically damaged, it may not be enough. 

Todd Moody