On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Stacie Tolen wrote:

> As you've pointed out, this is most directly relevant
> >to those of Native American descent.  Those of European descent
> >have been eating New World foods only since the time of Columbus.
> >
> You are forgetting those of us whose lineage includes both Native and
> European blood...what then? Would a "white" person with Native heritage have
> better tolerance to New World foods than her European cousins?

I really don't know.  As I said in an earlier message, if 15,000
years is enough time for adaptation, then other agricultural
foods shouldn't be that much of a problem either.

I wasn't trying to present a general case against New World
foods; I eat some of them myself, even though I am not, as far as
I know, of Native American descent.  My original point was that
there is inconsistency between the various "paleo rules" that we
work with here.  That inconsistency becomes evident when we
consider foods such as amaranth (new world) or oats (old world,
but an edible grain).  What to do about that inconsistency?  I
wish I knew, but I don't.

Another example:  Tomatoes are clearly a New World food.  They
are an excellent source of lycopene, which is believed to be a
powerful anti-carcinogenic phytonutrient.  They are edible raw.
Ray Audette eats them and uses them in recipes.  But (working
with the Clovis date) human beings have not been eating them for
longer than 15,000 years, and for people of European descent much
less time than that.  Some of us, myself included, find that
there is something in tomatoes that triggers or aggravates
psoriasis.  Some find that they cause migraine headaches.  I
don't think anyone knows why.  Because I tend to get psoriasis, I
seldom eat them.  My wife gets migraines and avoids them for that
reason.

> I have also found that I
> absolutely prefer venison to beef. Coincidence or genetic predisposition?
> That's why I was wondering about blood type diets (ER4YT).

It's a good question, but I think this is an area where our
knowledge is just woefully inadequate.  As I've stated in the
past, I have a mixed reaction to ER4YT.  I think D'Adamo has an
interesting and potentially important idea, but the scientific
validation of it falls far short of the confidence with which he
promulgates it.  In particular, a crossover study of people on
the various diets, with some objective measures of success and
failure, would be nice.  Nothing of the sort has been attempted,
however.

Likewise, a study comparing paleo to other diets would be a nice
thing to have, but it doesn't exist.  So we have to do a lot of
hand-waving and guessing.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]