[ExI] Paleo/Primal health [Was: Re: Technology, specialization, and diebacks...Re: I love the world. =)]

[Max More]

Dave Sill wrote
>Do you really think it's likely that the diet of our ancient 
>ancestors is better than anything we can come with today with our 
>vastly deeper knowledge of biology and nutrition?

I did not say that. The way you ask this seems quite odd: it seems to 
ignore the whole rationale for the paleo diet, which is essentially 
that we evolved to eat certain foods over very long periods of time 
and have not evolved to eat other foods. How much knowledge 
paleolithic people had is completely irrelevant. If we eat foods 
unsuited to our biology, it doesn't matter how much more we know. Our 
knowledge can help us optimize the diet that works best with our 
biology and, yes, it's possible that the paleo diet was not optimal, 
but it's unlikely that you'll do better by diverging from it very 
far. (Plenty of room for critical discussion exists on topics such as 
how rapidly various populations have adapted to dairy, and on 
individual variations in tolerance for lectin, lactose, etc.)


>And, if so, do you really think we know enough about our their diet 
>to recreate it today? For example, the paleo diet seems to exclude 
>grains, but nuts and seeds are OK. What do you think grains are? They're seeds.

I don't get the impression that you've read any of the sources I 
already provided, so I'm not going to go into any detail. The paleo 
diet allows for *some* nuts and seeds, but not in large quantities 
(again, different proponents have differing views on this). Seeds are 
different from wheat, rice, barley, millet, and other grains. Rice 
may not be as bad as wheat, especially wild rice.

As for knowing enough about the paleo diet to recreate it -- good 
question. It is indeed challenging, but take a look at the careful 
research by Loren Cordain on that issue (see my previous post).

Some sources (from Mark Sisson):
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-grains/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-rice-unhealthy/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/

It's not really helpful, though narrowly technically correct, to 
dismiss what I said by saying that "grains are seeds". By grains, I'm 
talking about the domesticated grasses in the gramineae family.


>And, if so, do you really think it's a good fit for a modern lifestyle?

Perhaps you should consider changing the modern lifestyle to work 
better with our genes (until we can reliably alter them). What 
exactly do you mean by the modern lifestyle? If you mean "do you 
think most people would be healthier on this diet even if they sit at 
a desk most of the day", I would say yes. That doesn't mean they 
won't be even healthier if they get some paleo-style exercise. Do you 
mean "isn't it more difficult to eat paleo-style than to grab fast 
food and make a quick bowl of pasta for dinner", I would also say 
yes, but don't see that as a strong objection to going paleo.


>I think one problem with the modern diet is too many refined grains. 
>But whole grains are loaded with nutrition and are absolutely not a 
>problem *in moderation*.

Are you sure whole grains are "loaded with nutrition"? From what I've 
seen (using numbers from the USDA nutrient database, that's not the 
case. For a given number of calories, whole grains are nutritionally 
poor compared to lean meats (I was very surprised by how 
nutrient-rich these are), seafood, vegetables, and fruit (plus they 
contain several "anti-nutrients"). Too bad I can't show you p. 271 of 
The Paleo Solution by Wolff which consists of a table comparing mean 
nutrient density of various food groups. As to them absolutely not 
being a problem in moderation: individuals clearly vary greatly in 
their tolerance for the anti-nutrients in whole grains. From what 
I've read, they absolutely are a problem even in moderation for many 
people. Even when there are no obvious problems, they may be doing 
slow damage and raising insulin levels.

Max