Hi Jim, 

On Feb 23, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Ron Hoggan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ron, you wrote:.. there is a lot of solid science that falls outside 
> of both [Weston Price and strict paleo which] may yet prove crucial to
healthy eating, especially for those whose genes are partly or wholly
non-European.

On Monday, February 24, 2014 7:42 AM, Jim Swayze wrote: 
I'd be interested in more info, Ron.  With nutrition science being the
shambles it is, I've yet to see any convincing study or review that points
in the non-paleo direction, with low carbohydrate paleo being the shining
example of what we ought all to eat.

[Ron] Well, it is a complicated topic, so I'll just mention a couple of
areas where the paleo paradigm may be somewhat flawed: 
1. gluten grains - For most of us, they are a problematic food, but about
20% of the human population doesn't make haptaglobin2. That suggests that
they don't make its precursor, zonulin. If they are not making zonulin, they
are not at risk for most of the hazards posed by eating gluten grains.
2. paleo assumptions - are often, at least partly, based on findings in the
skeletal remains of pre-agricultural humans, which are presumed to be
'typical' of their time and place. But most human populations were
concentrated on or near the sea shores. Given that today's sea levels are
~300 feet higher than during glacial maximums, 'typical' human remains
should be found below current sea levels, not above. So, by their very
location, the remains we are examining may not be typical of humans at that
time. Any conclusions we draw from these bones must therefore be viewed as a
questionable representation of human practices of the time. 

I'm not opposed to paleo eating, but I am opposed to the narrow focus it
sometimes induces. I suspect, for instance, that some folks can eat
non-paleo with relative impugnity. Might they live longer or healthier lives
eating paleo? Maybe. But I think that we need a richer understanding of the
impact of the genes that shape us. Some of us are more inclined to develop
problems with obesity, others with kidney disease, still others with
psychological ailments. Most of these can be seen as the results of
individual interactions with Neolithic foods and, at least partly, due to
genetic factors. But what was an optimal diet for a Trobriand Islander may
not be optimal for a person of European ancestry, and an optimal diet for an
Inuit person may be entirely different from both of the former. I'm saying
that there is an adaptive reason that some people have, for instance, dual
bile ducts. Most of us have single bile ducts. Those with dual ducts may
well digest fats more efficiently because they are delivering bile to the
small intestine at two separate locations. 

My biggest objection to any one-size-fits-all paradigm is that over the last
100,000 years or so, different populations were adapting to different
environments all over the world. While we may be able to make legitimate
claims, such as that arsenic is generally problematic when ingested, I think
that we need to understand ourselves better before leaping into yet another
one-size-fits-all way of seeing human nutrition. 

When my son was a teenager, I heard him telling his friend as they
approached our house: "Don't ask my dad anything. If you ask him what time
it is, he will start telling you how a watch works." :-)

best wishes, 
Ron