On Mon, 19 May 1997, Gary Jackson wrote:

> This macadamia discussion raises more questions for me. Working on the
> theory of foods that are alien to the ancestory of our species, is it
> not fair to say that this goes far beyond what is available without
> technology? How did a person from Northern European stock ever develop a
> tolerance for the brazil nut, for example? Is this a unreasonable
> complication or is there some other explanation?

The need for post-paleolithic technology to make a food available
or edible disqualifies it from the paleodiet.  Ray Audette makes
this point very clearly in NeanderThin and in many on-line
messages.  Opinions seem to diverge, however, on the question of
whether any food that is not disqualified in this way is
acceptable.  The definition of an unacceptable food is thus more
determinate than the definition of an acceptable food.

I guess you could call the "wide" paleodiet the one that says
that any food that our paleolithic ancestors *could have eaten*
with their level of technology is acceptable.  The "narrow"
paleodiet says that it is only the foods that our paleolithic
ancestors probably *did* eat that are acceptable.  The
evolutionary adaptation argument appears to favor the narrow
view.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]