On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Jim Swayze wrote:

> Todd > Given that limitation, I don't see any honest way to deny that
> rennet-fermented cheese could have been eaten regularly.
>
> Oh, I see it very, very differently.  And I consider myself to be possesed
> of a modicum of intellectual honesty.

I wasn't trying to accuse anybody of dishonesty, but I guess it
came out that way.  Let's just say that I just don't see any
*reasonable* way to deny that rennet-fermented cheese could have
been eaten regularly by hunters.

> Both from a volume standpoint and from a time standpoint, the amount
> required for a food to become a natural part of our diet is far from
> conclusive, it is true.

Yes, and the paleolithic period is very broad.  I think cheese
became available when our ancestors began hunting mammals on the
scale of goats, zebras, etc.

> And I am willing to admit that there might exist
> some diversity among peoples as to what they can and cannot tolerate.  But
> it seems to me that two things stand firmly against the inclusion of cheese
> in the list of foods our ancestors ate often and for long enough that we
> were able to adapt to it.  First, an argument from experience.  Many, many
> people find themselves unable to eat the stuff without obvious problems.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of people are unable to
eat curd cheese without obvious problems.  Do you have any data
on that?  I know that seafood allergies, for example, are fairly
common -- relative to food allergies -- but I wouldn't think of
arguing that this fact counts against their paleo status.  I also
know that some problems that people have with cheese, such as
tyramine headaches, are triggered by aged cheeses, but not fresh
cheeses, like curd cheese or farmer cheese.  See
http://www.headaches.org/consumer/topicsheets/tyramine.html for
example.  And note that these same people have problems with
nuts, chicken livers, and herring -- all paleo foods.  Seely
found that milk consumption was the best predictor of heart
disease rates around the world, but the correlation did not hold
for cheese (despite his expectation that it would).

So it's far from clear to me that the relevant kind of cheese is
causing problems for so many people as to count against its paleo
status.

> And maybe those that can aren't showing the ill effects in quite so obvious
> a fashion.

Maybe.

> Second, it seems to me something of an ad hoc hypothesis to
> assume that the stomach contents of these suckling animals would be
> considered edible.  I mean, that's what we're arguing about, right?

Yes.  But it's not ad hoc.  Eating stomach contents of prey is a
known practice among predators, including human hunters.  See,
for example,
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/learning/lifeways/Eskimos.html

"They crack open the leg bones for marrow, boil and eat the
fetuses, also the stomach contents."

We know that the marrow is valued for its fat content.  The fat
content of stomach-fermented cheese would also be significant.
Why discard it?  This is not ad hoc, since it's based on
knowledge what at least some hunters do, in conjunction with the
known value of fat as a dietary resource.

> If
> they were us (and they were since, as the Eades say, we have changed
> genetically 5 one-thousandth of a percent in 10,000 years), an argument
> that's just as fair on the other side could be made that they were smart
> enough to know to avoid eating the stuff since it's bad for you.

You're begging the question.  It hasn't been established that
cheese in this form is bad for you, nor has it been established
that hunters have only eaten cheese for the past 10,000 years.
The point under discussion is that they could have been eating
cheese for as long as it was available to them, and unless we
have good reason to think otherwise, that fact is a reason to
think they did.  A question-begging argument is not a fair
argument.

> There's plenty of room for denial that cheese was eaten regularly in the
> many hundreds of thousands of years of our existence.

The argument is that cheese was *available* to hunters for all
those years, and that we have no reason to suppose they didn't
take advantage of it.  What we want is not "room" to deny these
propositions, but reasons to do so.

> To my eyes, the
> evidence we have suggest avoiding dairy altogether if you want to remain
> "pure" from a paleo standpoint.

What evidence?  So far, the only evidence you have adduced is a
claim that cheese consumption causes health problems for "many,
many people," and an expression of personal incredulity that
paleolithic people ate stomach contents.  But I don't think we
have enough data to say that, especially if we restrict the
argument to fresh (i.e., not aged) cheeses, such as curd cheese
and farmer cheese (curd cheese with the water pressed out).
Furthermore, there are other ostensibly paleo foods that also
cause health problems for many people, so that argument can't be
decisive.  All that remains is incredulity about eating stomach
contents.  I can understand that incredulity, but I don't think
it has any evidential value, because it is based mainly on
aesthetic reactions.  Granted, I have trouble imagining myself
eating stomach cheese, but I have the same trouble imagining
myself cracking open skulls and scooping out the brains.
Nevertheless, I don't doubt for a moment that the latter practice
was one of the keys to hominid survival and evolution.  So,
setting aside my incredulity and disgust, I can't come up with
any good reason to think they didn't take advantage of stomach
cheese.

Since I am inevitably accused of trying to "rationalize" the
inclusion of non-paleo foods into paleo diet, let me anticipate
that argument and turn it around: Given that stomach cheese
*clearly* passes the "naked with a sharp stick" test that is
accepted as definitive by many on this list, why is there so much
insistence that all cheese must be considered "forbidden fruit"?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]