Hi Jim,
[Ron] 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.
[Jim] There are two schools of thought out there. The first, which you
represent here, sees gluten as an autoimmune problem for at least most
humans. The second, which you don't mention, but which is well represented
by Gary Taubes, sees gluten grains as problematic not due to their
autoimmune risk but due to their high carbohydrate content. So it seems to
me even if it were true that 20% of humans had zero autoimmune response to
gluten grains, they'd still have to deal with the high carbohydrate aspect
and the consequent spectrum of diseases caused by insulin resistance, etc.
[Ron] Yes, that is quite true. However, gluten grains are just one more
highly glycemic food in the list of highly glycemic foods that are included
in the standard American diet. I see that as a separate issue. Just as I do
not eat sugar or gluten myself, I do sometimes eat foods that contain sugar.
So for people who number among the 20% as mentioned above, a zero tolerance
approach is likely unnecessary in the pursuit of optimal health.
[Ron] 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.
[Jim] I'm not certain we're not inventing a problem here. I've read a lot
of people say, in effect, that because we don't know *exactly* what humans
consumed on February 19th, of 214,516 BCE, we shouldn't eat anything.
Well, ok. Maybe there's a problem there and maybe not. But we DO know what
they did NOT eat. (It seems to me that the paleo standard is best stated
as: consume the types and classes of foods that would have been available in
sufficient quantities throughout the year).
[Ron] If someone is inventing a problem, it would have to be me, but I don't
think I am. When we talk about eating foods that were available and likely
eaten prior to agriculture, we really need to have a sense of what those
foods are, and I see a lot of writings that suggest very narrow
interpretations of what was eaten.
[Ron] 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.
[Jim] We humans don't like to be tied down. We like our freedom. I get
that.
But I'm much more skeptical and prefer a much more conservative approach to
diet, within which paleo realm there is enormous room for freedom and
creativity. Even apples. You want to add in coffee or a little rice here
and there or some cheese, ok. The price should be relatively small for most
people. But let's not pretend its ideal to do so.
[Ron] I'm not sure how conservative you are. Do you avoid fruits because
today's fruits are likely more glycemic than pre-agricultural fruits? And
what about vegetables? Do you avoid potatoes because they were not available
to Europeans until about 500 years ago? And what about all the other
vegetables that were not available to Europeans until recently? And what
about meats? Do you avoid today's meats because they do not reflect the fat
content of pre-agricultural game?
I stand by my previous statement:
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.
best wishes,
Ron
|
