Re: what our species ate - a little more

[Guest guest]

And what we think they ate depends on whose bones were preserved where, and

whose copralite got preseved.

I prefer to note what healthy, long-living populations are eating today. I

note that in Okinawa, some isolated communities in China (according to T.

Colin ), around the Mediterranean there are some healthy people.

The Tarahumara, like the isolated Chinese groups, seem protected by diet

and exercise from cvd. There are similarities among these diets. I note

also that the Biosphere diet was similar in many respects to these diets,

as is that suggested by Ornish, the Pritikin group, etc. There are

enough hints to go around, just among these. Not to mention our own

Framingham studies.

With the exception of the Ornish program which was based on a very small

sample, as was the Biosphere II experience; there are real endpoints and

disease frequency data to consider. Also note that the Ornish program,

with the exceptioin of calcium from milk which can be relatively high in

Ornish, has macronutrient profile much like that of Biosphere II. There

are, of course, confounding issues among these contemporary populations.

Sanitation, lack of modern medicine, etc. But, these certainly are not

as confounding as the variabilities in the lives of people living in

paleolithic societies. I think we all need to eat our veggies, and lots

of fruit. If you eat enough greens, calcium is less problematic. Vitamin

E can sneak in there with the right greens. It's probably not as touchy as

we're guessing it to be. Once again, the original idea was calorie

restriction with adequate nutrition. We changed to cron with no real

evidence that cron was any better than cran. Except that Roy thinks it

should be (and so do I), and besides everybody on the list was more

interested in optimal nutrition and the pitfalls therein (except ) than

in the cr part of the whole thing. So, the acronym got changed from cran

to cron. I like what Francesca is saying, and I like JW's viewpoint, too.

And after all, I willing to change my own point of view at the drop of a

significant, proven datum!

Ed S

From: " Francesca Skelton " <fskelton@...>

< >

Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 12:17 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] what our species ate

> I think the Paleos assume our bodies " evolved " eating certain foods and we

> do better on those foods. But prior to cultivation/farming/raising

> livestock it must have been mostly happenstance and luck as to whether you

> even found food and what you found - and we probably ate lots of weeds and

> grass when we couldn't anything more suitable. I would imagine during

times

> of dire need and famine, some people probably ate poisonous plants (by

> mistake) and died. So it was a matter of what you chanced upon, and that

> was your diet. I'm sure it was also a function of where you were and what

> grew/lived there.

>

>

> on 6/8/2003 2:58 PM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:

>

> > I agree, Francesca,

> > Sorry I clipped too much of 's post.

> > I think what they ate walking around, berries, eggs, whatever is

probably not

> > necessarily evidenced in campsites. I'm not convinced at all of the

> > interpretations of archaeological finds, if they do in fact apply to our

> > adapted bodies and hybridized foods.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Ed,

I basically agree. I just have this thing about thinking the paleos knew what we know about diet, however small that is. The idea that the Paleos evolved eating a certain diet, doesn't mean that it's the optimum diet for our bodies now for longevity or any goal. And they didn't play football, work in offices, build buildings, etc.

I do basically the Ornish, low fat lacto veg AND low sodium. Funny no one ever mentions Paleos didn't carry a salt shaker.

BTW, I'm planning to grow some Chinese greens(Gai Lan, Gai Lon) which are near to broccoli, better than spinach in calcium. I can buy it in Hong Kong market but it's a ways.

Ever done any of that? Any suggestions?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Ed Sullivan

Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 7:11 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] what our species ate - a little more

And what we think they ate depends on whose bones were preserved where, andwhose copralite got preseved.I prefer to note what healthy, long-living populations are eating today. Inote that in Okinawa, some isolated communities in China (according to T.Colin ), around the Mediterranean there are some healthy people.The Tarahumara, like the isolated Chinese groups, seem protected by dietand exercise from cvd. There are similarities among these diets. I notealso that the Biosphere diet was similar in many respects to these diets,as is that suggested by Ornish, the Pritikin group, etc. There areenough hints to go around, just among these. Not to mention our ownFramingham studies.With the exception of the Ornish program which was based on a very smallsample, as was the Biosphere II experience; there are real endpoints anddisease frequency data to consider. Also note that the Ornish program,with the exceptioin of calcium from milk which can be relatively high inOrnish, has macronutrient profile much like that of Biosphere II. Thereare, of course, confounding issues among these contemporary populations.Sanitation, lack of modern medicine, etc. But, these certainly are notas confounding as the variabilities in the lives of people living inpaleolithic societies. I think we all need to eat our veggies, and lotsof fruit. If you eat enough greens, calcium is less problematic. VitaminE can sneak in there with the right greens. It's probably not as touchy aswe're guessing it to be. Once again, the original idea was calorierestriction with adequate nutrition. We changed to cron with no realevidence that cron was any better than cran. Except that Roy thinks itshould be (and so do I), and besides everybody on the list was moreinterested in optimal nutrition and the pitfalls therein (except ) thanin the cr part of the whole thing. So, the acronym got changed from cranto cron. I like what Francesca is saying, and I like JW's viewpoint, too.And after all, I willing to change my own point of view at the drop of asignificant, proven datum!Ed S

[Guest guest]

jwwright wrote:

Funny no one ever mentions Paleos

didn't carry a salt shaker.

actually this is mentioned in these books

positive dennis

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your comments, JW. I thought we might be at similar place re diet patterns, etc. I am adding salmon to Ornish, while eating somewhat less milk. Sort of like Pritikin's reversal diet with less milk. I cheat a lot. Too much. I have to count calories, now, or I gain weight even though I am still right on the edge of obesity. About 27% bodyfat. I also have to force myself to exercise, but this is gardening season and my wife, Colleen helps a lot with the forcing thing.

Yes, we've grown several oriental greens, including gai lon. It's well suited to the shady spots in our yard. We also buy it at Uwajimaya...tuesdays are senior discount mornings.

For those who think cron is just about living an extra decade, I just want to add that they should try being ad lib in their 50's and early 60's and cron (even though imperfectly) in their late 60's and early 70's. The improvement in the way you feel is very dramatic. Personally, I doubt that I would have made it to 80. Many of my friends probably will not. I wouldn't have wanted to, anyway. I felt lousy. Now, sometimes, I actually feel terrific. While I think Sherm's suggestion that we need to go by the averages, not maximums while calculating the benefits, I also like to consider that since my family have died almost exclusively of cvd except for my mother who died of too many cigaretters in and around her at age 78, and my father who was a lifelone serious asthmatic and stillmade it to 82....anyway, since many of these ancestors lived into their 90's and one into the 100's that my opportunity with good health could well be to perhaps age 100. Since I started cron at 64 and have averaged about 20% or more under adlib...I might be able to pick up 20% of 35 years. Kind of a short decade, but it gets pretty close to age 107. That would be worth it, too, especially if I keep feeling better and better. (Every day, in every way, I'm feeling....).

In any case, I'm living better than I was, certainly feeling "younger" than I did even 20 years ago in most respects and so cron is "worth it" in and of itself.

I see I've rambled again.

Gotta go dig some holes in the garden. A little late to plant gai lon here. Our summer drought has started early. Could plant some this Fall, though.

Ed S.

----- Original Message -----

From: jwwright

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:49 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] what our species ate - a little more

Thanks, Ed,

I basically agree. I just have this thing about thinking the paleos knew what we know about diet, however small that is. The idea that the Paleos evolved eating a certain diet, doesn't mean that it's the optimum diet for our bodies now for longevity or any goal. And they didn't play football, work in offices, build buildings, etc.

I do basically the Ornish, low fat lacto veg AND low sodium. Funny no one ever mentions Paleos didn't carry a salt shaker.

BTW, I'm planning to grow some Chinese greens(Gai Lan, Gai Lon) which are near to broccoli, better than spinach in calcium. I can buy it in Hong Kong market but it's a ways.

Ever done any of that? Any suggestions?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Ed Sullivan

Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 7:11 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] what our species ate - a little more

And what we think they ate depends on whose bones were preserved where, andwhose copralite got preseved.I prefer to note what healthy, long-living populations are eating today. Inote that in Okinawa, some isolated communities in China (according to T.Colin ), around the Mediterranean there are some healthy people.The Tarahumara, like the isolated Chinese groups, seem protected by dietand exercise from cvd. There are similarities among these diets. I notealso that the Biosphere diet was similar in many respects to these diets,as is that suggested by Ornish, the Pritikin group, etc. There areenough hints to go around, just among these. Not to mention our ownFramingham studies.With the exception of the Ornish program which was based on a very smallsample, as was the Biosphere II experience; there are real endpoints anddisease frequency data to consider. Also note that the Ornish program,with the exceptioin of calcium from milk which can be relatively high inOrnish, has macronutrient profile much like that of Biosphere II. Thereare, of course, confounding issues among these contemporary populations.Sanitation, lack of modern medicine, etc. But, these certainly are notas confounding as the variabilities in the lives of people living inpaleolithic societies. I think we all need to eat our veggies, and lotsof fruit. If you eat enough greens, calcium is less problematic. VitaminE can sneak in there with the right greens. It's probably not as touchy aswe're guessing it to be. Once again, the original idea was calorierestriction with adequate nutrition. We changed to cron with no realevidence that cron was any better than cran. Except that Roy thinks itshould be (and so do I), and besides everybody on the list was moreinterested in optimal nutrition and the pitfalls therein (except ) thanin the cr part of the whole thing. So, the acronym got changed from cranto cron. I like what Francesca is saying, and I like JW's viewpoint, too.And after all, I willing to change my own point of view at the drop of asignificant, proven datum!Ed S