On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, James Smith wrote:

> An antidote to this somewhat absurd position was published by Dr. Ruth
> Kava, director of nutrition for the American Council on Science and
> Health.  She points out that energy balance is neglected in the
> arguments on which nutrient it is that makes us fat and, therefore,
> ignores the most fundamental science in this debate. The form of
> calories we take in is not as important as the number compared with
> those we burn through activity.
> < http://www.acsh.org/forum/features/choices.html >

She's right, but the fact that the number is *more* important
doesn't entail that the kind of calories is *unimportant*.
It has been demonstrated again and again that calories count, as
far as weight loss is concerned, but the kind of calories
consumed do have an effect on how much of the weight loss is
*fat* loss, and this point is repeatedly overlooked by these
critics.

> HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: The cavemen argument
> doesn't mean eating a lot of lean meat.  It really means tracking that
> animal for a day before you kill it and butcher it.  Few of us are
> willing to live that way, so we need to adapt our behaviors to the
> modern world.  Want air conditioning, your own car, and electrical
> appliances?  Then you need to find other ways to burn calories on a
> regular basis.  This may be an ugly proposition to many, but it is the
> only one that works.

There's some truth in this.  The paleo diet was embedded in the
paleo lifestyle, in which access to food could not have been very
similar to what we enjoy, not to mention other conveniences.  In
that lifestyle, activity and eating were more intimately
connected; in ours, they are not.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]