On Mon, 12 May 1997, Ward Nicholson wrote:

> - Legumes (peanuts)/grains would not have been part of the diet, grains in
> particular not until Neolithic times 10,000 years ago.

As I understand it, the reason why legumes would not have been
part of the h/g diet is that they are mostly inedible raw.  But
since peanuts and cashews are not inedible raw, wouldn't one
expect that h/gs would have eaten them?

> So I take it that health by itself is not necessarily the operative
> criterion here? (I guess I had thought it was.) If not, then that obviously
> changes the consideration entirely. Which I can certainly accept if we want
> to bring taking calculated risks into the picture for the sake of enjoyment
> or convenience; I was just not clear on this before. But I had thought we
> were talking purely health issues here.

Health is good, but trading risks for benefits is inevitable, as
you point out in your comments on practicality.  The fact is
there are many things that *might* improve my health that I
simply don't do, not because of negligence (as a general thing)
but because doing (all of) them would have too great a negative
impact on quality of life.  Indeed, practicality and expense are
themselves aspects of quality of life.  Therefore, my approach to
the paleodiet is to try to understand the risks better, and to
rank them rather then giving them all equal (i.e., unacceptable)
status.

> Another question is eggs. Eggs in small quantities were a part of the
> Paleolithic diet. But not in the regular quantities most people eat them
> today. But given the lack of available organ meats, could there be
> something to be said for eating more eggs--within limits--(as a rich,
> so-called "perfect" protein) as a possible compensatory source of rich
> proteins? Is it possible that the fact people eat more of certain things
> these days (perhaps without thinking about it, like eggs) may be some sort
> of attempt on the body's part to bring a balance given the lack of the
> foods we *did* eat during evolution? These are the sorts of questions that
> interest me, and the risks involved.

According to what I have been reading recently, eggs laid by
factory-farmed grain-fed chickens are high in arachidonic acid.
This is also true of the fat on cuts of factory-farmed meats, and
organ meats.  Consuming large amounts of dietary AA is not
something that our paleolithic ancestors did, and is problematic
from a health standpoint.  AA causes the body to favor production
of the "bad" eicosanoids, which are vasoconstrictive,
pro-inflammatory, and pro-clotting (i.e., contributing to heart
disease risk factors).  Thus, the "supermarket hunter/gatherer"
may actually be putting himself/herself at *increased* health
risk by trying to imitate the paleolithic diet.  I suppose that
pemmican made from such beef and suet could be rather dangerous
stuff.

> There is also the question of cost. I just
> can't afford to eat 35%50% of my diet as meat to approximate the Paleodiet
> picutre. So by economics and circumstance, I am willing to take risks too,
> I guess.

And the cost increases considerably if you start buying your meat
and eggs from health food stores.

Most of us, I think, will find ourselves making many compromises.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]