On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:05:03 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>> The Neanderthin style paleo diet does reflect our anchestry in the
>> upper paleolithicum, this is the time from about 40000 bc to 10000 bc,
>> in northern climates.
>> There are no changes in the genetics, teeth shape etc. to expect in such
>>a short time, like also not in the last 12000 years.
>
>It's not clear, Amadeus.  As you know there are some recent
>theories that suggest that all modern humans are descended from a
>relatively small African breeding population that lived (in
>Africa) about 60.000 years ago.  That population dispersed and
>was subject to the climatic extremes of the last glaciation,
>which was a major environmental stress.  If this "bottleneck"
>theory is correct, that stress may indeed have caused a
>significant genetic shift.

I tend to accept that recent theory you mentioned.
We know that the population dispersed all over the world, also
as ice age hunters in the glaciated (and winter glaciated) world.

There was some major developement about 60 of 40 k years back.
Diamond called it the Gread Leap
It gave our anchestors advantage over all the other
kinds of homo. I suppose it has to do with a better intellectual
ability (better imagination and pre-thinking) which made major inventions
possible in a few 1000 years instead of 100,000s of years.

These northern populations shurely had a "bottleneck" - weed out pressure,
as the environment was harsh.
Nutritionally I think it was only a change in the extent of what was there
before. The basic principles - protein degradation for glucose (brain) and
ketone usage and detoxification are the same system as used in usual
starvation. Some organs like kidney can adjust by increasing the size within
a normal lifetime.
The vitamin shortages, particularly our rain-wood vitamin C would have been
a real challenge.

But the population in the north will have mixed again with
other population drafts later on. Particularly in the emerging warm age.
That will again have introduced some genes less proved upon "north upper
paleolithicum".
Population from more southern and wormer parts of the world will have been
many more as opposed to a few thousand in middle europe.
The bioproductivity of northern areas is low.

> And there would still have been the small hunted
>animals: rodents, turtles, monkeys, etc.  There's no reason to
>think that the first hominids were *worse* hunters than chimps.

Yes, then if they double the 4% meat (including insects) of chimps
Marylin's 10% seem reasonable.

>  I agree that the earliest meat was from carrion and very
>small prey.  After that, there is a slow but steady trajectory
>toward increased hunting, reaching its zenith in the Upper
>Paleolithic.

In an almost constant dry environment like africa the slow but trajectory
increase can be seen very small, like from 9.5% to 10%.
And certainly less again, jumping between 2% and 20% depending on
availability.
It wasn't only a zenith in the Upper Paleolithic, it was a sudden peak,
caused by cold climate and enabled by the northern animals high fat.
We just have located most of the evolution (up to 60000 bc) in warm africa.

> Loren Cordain..  He is a
>scientist who makes every effort to document his assertions.

d'accordo

> I think, for example, that the following is reasonable:
>The more SFA you eat, the more important it is to get your
>omega-3 fat as pre-formed EPA and DHA, because the SFA may
>prevent the conversion of LNA.

That's reasonable in the light of EPA/DHA. Don't forget OA like SFA.

> On the other hand, on a diet low
>in SFA, the conversion of LNA is more efficient.  What this means
>is that it's probably a bad idea to eat lots of animal fat and
>then supplement with something like flax oil for omega-3 fats.

I think I would be a good idea to supplement with high quality basic EFAs
like hemp or flax *with* LA.

Just to keep the total EFA percentage up, like in nature.
For anti cancer, cell membranes.
And don't forget the *good* eico's (PGE1). They come from LA only.

In such an animal fat environment I wouldn't eat flax alone but include LA
carriers's too, maybe even GLA (that would mean hemp, sesame, unrefined
sunflower to flax).

I've read a new book from Sears (one in german) and again saw his efforts
to promote good eicosanoids over "bad" ones.
Now his basic tool is prolonging glucagon time over insulin time.
Low insulin - low d5d - low AA - low bad eicos and more good. Ok so far.

I really think that *this* is the mechanism that works in
"Leben ohne Brot". Low carb will make fewer insulin ups. Less bad eicos.
Should the ideal to fight inflammations, also gut inflammation.

Sear's way: Just eating every carbohydrate with equal protein & fat - I
don't know if this is the best way to come down from insulin-peaks.
Choosing less insulin rising foods and limiting the insulin
lifters to few (1) meals per day would be more promising, I think.
And of course less meals.
Each meal will have it's own insulin peak, big or small.

>In any case, I think Cordain's comments about vitamin A and
>taurine tend to support his point that the human trajectory has
>been in the direction of increasing meat consumption.

Well, of course these are supporting points to eat just the stuff, where
it's abundant. But the point that the supply from other sources would be low
is weak. Many millions live without ever eating liver or kidney.
I can't see a reason not to avoid meat from this points.

Regards

Amadeus