For those of you concerned about seeing paleodiet-related ideas make it out
of our insular little neck of the woods into the light of day, there is an
article in the 7/13/98 issue of Newsweek ("In Sugar We Trust," pp. 72-74)
focusing on hyperinsulinism and insulin resistance. There is of course
still resistance (pun intended ;-) ) out there to the idea, but the fact it
is getting public play in a mainstream, non-health magazine like this is
good to see even if the treatment is rather brief. (Of course, maybe since
I am not much of a news-hound and just happened across this article by
chance, I've missed a lot of others.)

The focus of the article is mostly on the consequences of habitual or
all-day-long consumption of high-glycemic-index, refined, and "added"
sugars in the diet, rather than the non-evolutionarily congruent abundance
of grains in the modern diet that gives rise to so much of our carbohydrate
consumption in the first place (which isn't even touched on, of course).
But the article is of interest just to see how the idea of insulin
resistance is perceived by the mainstream, including creeping acceptance of
its correlation with heart disease, adult-onset diabetes, hypertension,
stroke, and cancer. A sidebar plus a bit of the text takes its cue from the
recent popular book "Sugar Busters."

One of the predictable objections voiced at one point in the article is
that if carbs are reduced, then nutritionists (obviously and predictably)
react in worry about people having to eat too much of the other
macronutrients, i.e., protein and fat. So there is (equally obviously and
predictably) still some way to go before the paleodiet view of the role of
these in the diet receives wider attention.

It looks like the next step to broader acceptance for paleodiet ideas in
the nutritional mainstream--undoubtedly a tougher step--will be the
paleodiet data on higher-protein diets and animal foods. There still seems
to be little if any awareness outside the field of paleodiet about the vast
differences in animal fat/protein composition between wild-game type
animals (or animals raised to mimic them) compared to the modern
domesticated animals around which it seems all the current strictures about
animal foods are based. (Which is probably one of the biggest blind spots
and confounding factors in current nutritional studies that cast a
jaundiced eye on animal flesh.)

It's interesting to speculate if once the dust settles regarding insulin
resistance, whether mainstream nutritionists and dieticians might be more
open to considering the implications of paleodiet research on animal
protein and fat in the diet. There is obviously going to be a lot of
reaction to overcome given the currently entrenched high-carb, low-fat
paradigm. Anyway, I wonder if others here have given any consideration to
these issues related to getting broader acceptance of paleodiet ideas by
the nutritional mainstream? Any strategic ideas for making inroads at
something greater than the usual "speed of osmosis." :-)

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>