>Richard Archer writes:
>  "...evolution moves a lot faster than some people give it credit for"

>Dr.Ron Schmid:
>"Audette's theory is basically flawed.  Many cultures not only adapted, but
>thrived beautifully on raw milk and the inclusion of some grains in their
>diet.  Dr. Weston Price proved that to the world."

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:55:59 EST, Judy Genova <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I suppose its another one of those arguments that can be viewed through
>the glass half full or half empty lens.   Just depends on what side of the
>fence you wish to stand.

Yes, if you need a handy phrase or explanation for some
theory you like to spread.

Evolution is a handy paradigm.
Ray's nutrition rules match the layman imagination of many people
how "paleolithicum" was. People living in caves, eating mammoth and paint
some hunting scenes on cave walls from time to time.

Yes, and (whole) paleolithicum was very long, 2 million years, while
neolithicum was only 10000 years, only an "eyeblink".
Only the long time would "shape our genes", cause adaption.

Nobody seems to feel disturbed by the fact, that the caveman/mammothhunting
late paleoliticum happened only for a little longer (3 eyeblinks) and only
for a certain percentage of people, probably more for those descending from
northern europe.

Further, that feeding primates with a diet of fat and meat would not require
any adaption, because this is what animal bodies are able to do
under ordinary starving condition.

There are basic requirements in the diet of humans we are not adapted to and
these are constantly violated by the modern western diet.
Our dependancy of vitamins and minerals.
Going back to any diet of the paleolithicum will help this - more or less.
Going back to the diet of any good neolithicum times before
industrialization, will help this as well.
Industry food is the real culprit.

Further there are some dangers which were new since neolithical times.
The antinutrients in grains and legumes and the shortcomeings in two
vitamins when displacing other food by them.
The real neolithicum people switched to denser and more nutritios plants,
and they could so by developping techniques how to overcome the dangers
(fermenting, cooking, milling, using plants high in the missing nutrients:
rose hip, various collard species, flax, herbs, fruit).
The traditional wisdom how to eat and live a neolithical life has been
disregarded by many "new age", muesli type, back-to-nature people.

To learn this is my most important profit of all the paleo discussion.

Abolishing the newly introduced food items ("wheat"), like Ray demands,
is a useful way out of this industry dilemma. Particularly after
many have developped severe allergy problems against them, over the years.

However there are dangers as well.
They are again in the deviation from real nature food.
Fat compositions. Hormones and chemicals. Danger to disregard
the appropiate (paleolithicum-like) plant food the actual people had.
Not everything considered "paleo" in the definitions will do good.
Those in danger of diabetes won't profit from honey.
And of course allergies can emerge on *any* food item- not only the
antinutrient defended ones. I have allergy against one meat.
"Alien" proteins are those causing conditions of allergy. In YOU.

Amadeus Schmidt-Philipp