On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:36:47 -0700, Ken Stuart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Well, there are two types of foods that are "dangerous to our health".
>
>One is when is when the food is deficient in nutrients, such as in this
>case,
>where the meat is deficient in EFA's.   In this case, the food is only
>"dangerous" to anyone who is not aware of the deficiency.   Since this is
>most people, Udo is correct in using the "dangerous" qualifier.   However,
>once we realize this deficiency exists, we can supplement with - as you
>mention - arctic
>marine fats which are high in EFA's.

I agree. If you know the deficits, you can supplement properly.
Proper selected from fish oils can supply EPA, LA or GLA can also be added.

However, necessary supplementation signalize in some way, that the syle of
nutrition one has, is not truely anchestral adapted - unpaleo.
This is what disturbs me, when i'm going to supplement vitamin b12.

>The other type of dangerous food is where, instead of being deficient in
>anything, rather it contains unhealthy or poisonous substances.   In my
>opinion,
>this sort of food is more dangerous than the nutritionally deficient food,
>because no supplement will help.   The most significant example of this is
>grains, which cause leaky gut syndrome, autoimmune disorders,
>hyperinsulinemia and so on.

I agree in general.
Avoiding toxins is more important, because such a toxin can "delete"
goodies even from other, healthy sources.
This is the case for beef's fat, which deletes even added EFAs from some
other source.
And this is the case for the toxins from grains. Phytin will delete
-as far as we know- minerals eaten from other sources in the same meal.

I don't think that all "grains" (would that mean any smaller seed?) can be
thrown into the same pot. Probably you refer particularly to cereals.
Even each of the 7 "old" cereals (wheat, millet, rye, rice, maize, oats,
barley) have quite different properties.
E.g. oats has a full 7% of fat (more than wild game), much of its carbs as
fructose and interesting protecting substances.

There are a couple of non-cereal grains which even more different and
interesting properties which often are simply disregarded (buckwheat,
quinoa, amarant, flax, hemp... ). Any plant has seeds.

Almost any nutritional stuff contains or creates "toxins" of some sort.
I hate to mention, but just as an example, meat has histamins, pesticides,
hormones, tranquilizers, heavy metals , digestion toxins (cadaverin...),
purins, nitrogen metabolites and, as emphasised by Erasmus, saturated fats.

Trying to keep an eye on anchestral nutrition (paleo or genetic adapted),
it catches my eye, that the cereal grains, despite it's known toxins
were hardly known to cause "leaky gut syndrome, autoimmune disorders,
hyperinsulinemia". In 7000-12000 years of very intense usage.
These diseases appeared particularly in the years (150 years ago, but
boosted 50 years ago) when (modern style) meat consumption predominated more
and more.
(I don't see meat as the culprit, more as a side appearance, connected to
the increased consumption of cheap, storable, low quality staples and
sugar).
More probable as "the culprit" for such diseases seem to me the processing
techniques applied on the grains, and/or the lost "traditional" processing
techniques (like proper sourdough) which were proven to remove toxins.

Again, keeping an eye on paleo-nutrition, the "modern" style meat is *very*
different to any meat of the wild. Even the high fat animals of Rays beloved
ice-age megafauna ate herbs from the ground and had very probable a *very*
different fat composition. And were available to very limited counts of (Cro
Magnon) humans. As much as could sustain themselves on the ice-shields.

Other humanoid traits with some 100k years exposition to actic environments
died out without leaving traces in humans, with high probability
(neanderthal).
In this light modern beef (or pork or poultry) can be considered the most
unpaleo, with close to zero exposition time on humans (some 50 years). If
not ultra-lean, organic, not-feed-lot...

> By the way, I should mention that while I think highly of the Udo Erasmus
>book
>(it is right next to Neanderthin in the bookshelf next to the computer), I
>should caution that, like anyone else, not everything he says is 100%
>correct.

I would assume that any document can contain some errors of may mislead one
by emphasizing unrelevant topics. With Udo Erasmus i have the impression of
a very well informed source, remaining rather neutral in suggestions.
The information on EFA metabolism and way to prostaglandines are so rich.
Comparing the Zone book i have and it's conclusions look like a gross
oversimplification (just take Borage, EPA and lower insulin...).

However I'd be interested on any constructive critique or found errors or
topics under dispute.

regards and have a nice day.

Amadeus S.