On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, tom roberts wrote:

> Todd, when you said:
>
> > I don't agree that sugar itself
> > is non-paleo.  If you eat a single orange you'll consume more
> > sucrose than you will from a large serving of bacon
>
> am I correct in  understanding that you are saying all forms of sugar
> are the same? That the sugar in bacon or a candy bar is, in effect no
> different from the sugar in a piece of fruit?

That's basically correct, at least as far as paleodiet is
concerned.  That sugar is refined, but there is no rule against
refined ingredients in Neanderthin or other paleo implementations
that I am familiar with.  Perhaps there should be, but that would
change the diet considerably.

> I do not have the science backgrond to prove my position but I can
> assure you that there are a lot of people who respond quite negatively
> to table sugar and it's close cousins but have no response to fruit or
> the sugars in veggies. Therefore there must be something that is
> different.

Well, I don't have the ability or inclination to challenge your
experience on this.  My basic point is simple: sucrose is paleo,
in that it is found in foods that are considered paleo.  I don't
question that there may be other reasons not to eat it, even in
small amounts, but these reasons are external to the principles
of paleo diet.  If we say, for example, that sucrose wouldn't
normally be found in meat, that's true, but is it a general rule
that no sugar should be used in a meat-containing meal?  That
certainly rules out Neanderthing barbecue sauce, for example.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]