[Ron] 1. gluten grains - For most of us, they are a problematic food, but
about
20% of the human population doesn't make haptaglobin2. That suggests that
they don't make its precursor, zonulin. If they are not making zonulin, they
are not at risk for most of the hazards posed by eating gluten grains.

There are two schools of thought out there.  The first, which you represent
here, sees gluten as an autoimmune problem for at least most humans.  The
second, which you don't mention, but which is well represented by Gary
Taubes, sees gluten grains as problematic not due to their autoimmune risk
but due to their high carbohydrate content.  So it seems to me even if it
were true that 20% of humans had zero autoimmune response to gluten grains,
they'd still have to deal with the high carbohydrate aspect and the
consequent spectrum of diseases caused by insulin resistance, etc.

[Ron]  2. paleo assumptions - are often, at least partly, based on findings
in the
skeletal remains of pre-agricultural humans, which are presumed to be
'typical' of their time and place. But most human populations were
concentrated on or near the sea shores. Given that today's sea levels are
~300 feet higher than during glacial maximums, 'typical' human remains
should be found below current sea levels, not above. So, by their very
location, the remains we are examining may not be typical of humans at that
time. Any conclusions we draw from these bones must therefore be viewed as a
questionable representation of human practices of the time.

I'm not certain we're not inventing a problem here.  I've read a lot of
people say, in effect, that because we don't know *exactly* what humans
consumed on February 19th, of 214,516 BCE, we shouldn't eat anything.
Well, ok.  Maybe there's a problem there and maybe not.  But we DO know
what they did NOT eat.  (It seems to me that the paleo standard is best
stated as: consume the types and classes of foods that would have been
available in sufficient quantities throughout the year).

[Ron] I'm not opposed to paleo eating, but I am opposed to the narrow focus
it
sometimes induces. I suspect, for instance, that some folks can eat
non-paleo with relative impugnity.

We humans don't like to be tied down.  We like our freedom.  I get that.
But I'm much more skeptical and prefer a much more conservative approach to
diet, within which paleo realm there is enormous room for freedom and
creativity.  Even apples.  You want to add in coffee or a little rice here
and there or some cheese, ok.  The price should be relatively small for
most people.  But let's not pretend its ideal to do so.

 Jim


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Ron Hoggan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> On Feb 23, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Ron Hoggan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Ron, you wrote:.. there is a lot of solid science that falls outside
> > of both [Weston Price and strict paleo which] may yet prove crucial to
> healthy eating, especially for those whose genes are partly or wholly
> non-European.
>
> On Monday, February 24, 2014 7:42 AM, Jim Swayze wrote:
> I'd be interested in more info, Ron.  With nutrition science being the
> shambles it is, I've yet to see any convincing study or review that points
> in the non-paleo direction, with low carbohydrate paleo being the shining
> example of what we ought all to eat.
>
> [Ron] Well, it is a complicated topic, so I'll just mention a couple of
> areas where the paleo paradigm may be somewhat flawed:
> 1. gluten grains - For most of us, they are a problematic food, but about
> 20% of the human population doesn't make haptaglobin2. That suggests that
> they don't make its precursor, zonulin. If they are not making zonulin,
> they
> are not at risk for most of the hazards posed by eating gluten grains.
> 2. paleo assumptions - are often, at least partly, based on findings in the
> skeletal remains of pre-agricultural humans, which are presumed to be
> 'typical' of their time and place. But most human populations were
> concentrated on or near the sea shores. Given that today's sea levels are
> ~300 feet higher than during glacial maximums, 'typical' human remains
> should be found below current sea levels, not above. So, by their very
> location, the remains we are examining may not be typical of humans at that
> time. Any conclusions we draw from these bones must therefore be viewed as
> a
> questionable representation of human practices of the time.
>
> I'm not opposed to paleo eating, but I am opposed to the narrow focus it
> sometimes induces. I suspect, for instance, that some folks can eat
> non-paleo with relative impugnity. Might they live longer or healthier
> lives
> eating paleo? Maybe. But I think that we need a richer understanding of the
> impact of the genes that shape us. Some of us are more inclined to develop
> problems with obesity, others with kidney disease, still others with
> psychological ailments. Most of these can be seen as the results of
> individual interactions with Neolithic foods and, at least partly, due to
> genetic factors. But what was an optimal diet for a Trobriand Islander may
> not be optimal for a person of European ancestry, and an optimal diet for
> an
> Inuit person may be entirely different from both of the former. I'm saying
> that there is an adaptive reason that some people have, for instance, dual
> bile ducts. Most of us have single bile ducts. Those with dual ducts may
> well digest fats more efficiently because they are delivering bile to the
> small intestine at two separate locations.
>
> My biggest objection to any one-size-fits-all paradigm is that over the
> last
> 100,000 years or so, different populations were adapting to different
> environments all over the world. While we may be able to make legitimate
> claims, such as that arsenic is generally problematic when ingested, I
> think
> that we need to understand ourselves better before leaping into yet another
> one-size-fits-all way of seeing human nutrition.
>
> When my son was a teenager, I heard him telling his friend as they
> approached our house: "Don't ask my dad anything. If you ask him what time
> it is, he will start telling you how a watch works." :-)
>
> best wishes,
> Ron
>
>