Easy Childbirth on Paleo Diets

[wodgina]

The symmetry=attractiveness theory is far from dodgy.

WAP said the Down syndrome kid turned into an adolescent after the surgery to expand the palate, unfortunately WAP said that he turned into a sex pervert because of this and ended up in a institution. Where's the cure?

[TylerDurden]

WAP said the Down syndrome kid turned into an adolescent after the surgery to expand the palate, unfortunately WAP said that he turned into a sex pervert because of this and ended up in a institution. Where's the cure?

The point is that WP falsely  claimed a temporary cure vis surgery and further claimed that once the surgery didn't take, the so-called beneficial effect effect was removed:-

"The boy wore an appliance in his mouth to keep the bones in place but when it subsequently became dislodged, he reverted and many of his previous abnormal characteristics returned"

At any rate, given the clear references I gave down's syndrome has nothing to do with diet(or surgery!) and is solely due to genetics. Therefore WP must have lied about this claim(or, at best,  perhaps he found only slight (non-mental) improvement and then  greatly exaggerated his findings.

[Raw Kyle]

Tyler, nothing is solely due to genetics or diet. Every part of the body requires genes to produce and raw materials (diet) as well. If either the genetics are damaged, or the diet is lacking, problems arise. And what is often looked at as genetic problems could really just be diet deficiency. You don't often hear Vitamin C deficiency described as a genetic disease do you? Well there is only one other animal that cannot produce it's own Vitamin C other than humans, so in that sense the need to take in dietary Vitamin C is as close to a genetic disease as anything else you could think of. It's all semantics and you're getting way to stuck on it.

[PaleoPhil]

...Weston Price most certainly DID make those claims though re curing retards.  ...

Hey guys, do mind keeping such callous terms and off-topics out of my thread? If you want to argue about Weston Price, please create a thread for it. It's getting out of hand. Thanks.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler, nothing is solely due to genetics or diet. Every part of the body requires genes to produce and raw materials (diet) as well. If either the genetics are damaged, or the diet is lacking, problems arise. And what is often looked at as genetic problems could really just be diet deficiency. You don't often hear Vitamin C deficiency described as a genetic disease do you? Well there is only one other animal that cannot produce it's own Vitamin C other than humans, so in that sense the need to take in dietary Vitamin C is as close to a genetic disease as anything else you could think of. It's all semantics and you're getting way to stuck on it.

I would agree that diet could indirectly influence genes(re epigenetics), though I think it's clear, from evidence from the animal kingdom, that any claims that diet can cure birth-defects 100% is bogus.

[TylerDurden]

Hey guys, do mind keeping such callous terms and off-topics out of my thread? If you want to argue about Weston Price, please create a thread for it. It's getting out of hand. Thanks.

Well, originally that term came from the old IQ tests and was neutral, but I suppose I'll have to use the longwinded politically correct versions instead.As for Weston-Price, most of the arguments re easy childbirth were backed up by references to Weston-Price due to claims re diet, so it was inevitable that WP should be discussed. Still, I'm happy to start another thread as long as WP isn't further referenced.

[PaleoPhil]

I would agree that diet could indirectly influence genes(re epigenetics), though I think it's clear, from evidence from the animal kingdom, that any claims that diet can cure birth-defects 100% is bogus.

On that I agree with you. The voluminous research on the dietary aspects and therapies for Down and Marfan syndromes is exciting, but we musn't leap ahead of the science to wild conclusions, as people's hopes can be built up TOO high.

One thing I've encountered along these lines is some people who experience amazing improvements with weight, chronic illness, etc. through dietary therapy, but are disappointed or even angry when every single health or physical defect isn't corrected 100%. Expectations can be set too high as well as too low. For myself, the results of dietary therapy have far exceeded my expectations and I have experienced improvements that I thought were impossible, [but I try to be careful not to promise people 100% cures where there isn't strong evidence for this. Still, dietary therapy is the most underutilized, and probably the most effective, of all therapies on the majority of human pathologies. All of us are testament to that].

[Raw Kyle]

I would agree that diet could indirectly influence genes(re epigenetics), though I think it's clear, from evidence from the animal kingdom, that any claims that diet can cure birth-defects 100% is bogus.

The Vitamin C thing is my prime example of how much diet can effect a lack of genetics. Look it up for yourself, almost every animal can produce Vitamin C. Humans lack one enzyme in a string of 6 or so to take whatever raw materials you start with and end up with Vitamin C. This is obviously very easily fixed by taking in dietary Vitamin C, and therefore this genetic disease, which everyone has, is completely unnoticed until some sailors travel around the world and run out of fresh food on their voyage.

There are probably many enzymes present in some raw foods like meat and organs that would treat certain genetic diseases. Think about it, scientists say cancer is largely genetic. Which means you would imagine that person who has cancer, their ancestors got it as well. But what if they didn't? Cancer was virtually unknown a few hundred years ago. Why? Maybe because people were consuming nutrients, whether it be more enzymes, vitamins or minerals, that might have fixed some of the metabolic pathways that our genetics today cannot make do with on the modern diet. Just like Vitamin C deficiency, many diseases are probably the result of a lack of a certain enzyme to do something, which was traditionally corrected by dietary intake of either that enzyme or a coenzyme that helped it's production, and that today is absent or largely absent from the diet.

My biggest pet peeve in science today is using genetics to explain everything. Genetics is probably the smallest factor in human disease, accounting for in my rough estimation 1% at most.

[TylerDurden]

I agree that genetics as regards illnesses like cancer is not too relevant given that there have been multiple reports re bacteria(which are found in raw food in plenty) curing cancer(and the connection made between the levels of heat-created toxins in the human body and the rate of cancer). However, diet is not the sole answer to everything. Wild animals also have birth-defects despite their natural diets(even mental retardation like Down's Syndrome) and even (low rates of) cancer(though that is ascribed to air and water pollution by some  people).

[Raw Kyle]

I agree that genetics as regards illnesses like cancer is not too relevant given that there have been multiple reports re bacteria(which are found in raw food in plenty) curing cancer(and the connection made between the levels of heat-created toxins in the human body and the rate of cancer). However, diet is not the sole answer to everything. Wild animals also have birth-defects despite their natural diets(even mental retardation like Down's Syndrome) and even (low rates of) cancer(though that is ascribed to air and water pollution by some  people).

I believe in the concept of genes and the possibility of genetic mutation, but I still think even with most mutations natural living would have made up for it. I can only point to my Vitamin C post as it's clear and easy to understand and I don't feel like coming up with another analogy, but I'm sure that all organisms are rife with "genetic diseases" that only manifest themselves when something in their diet is lacking.

Actually I can easily come up with another example, the "essential" amino acids and "essential" fatty acids are simply ones that we cannot synthesize from raw materials in our bodies. Why isn't that considered a genetic disease? Cause everyone has it? Cause it's addressed by nutrition? Yes, those are the two reasons, but most genetic diseases fit in those conditions. Cancer, everyone has it to some extent, cancerous cells are being created and gobbled up by cellular defenses all the time. Plaque in the arteries? Everyone produces a bit, and it gets cleaned away. But take away proper nutrition from anyone and the incidence of cancer cells will increase as well as plaque production. Let it go on long enough and then all of a sudden you have a magical genetic disease. It's ridiculous.

[PaleoPhil]

As for Weston-Price, most of the arguments re easy childbirth were backed up by references to Weston-Price due to claims re diet, so it was inevitable that WP should be discussed. Still, I'm happy to start another thread as long as WP isn't further referenced.

Two out of 14 total references, including 6 article or study references, mentioned Weston Price. Last I knew, 2/14 was not considered "most."

The writings or research of these people was also listed, yet you completely ignored them and focused only on Price:

Robert P. Roy, MD, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada
Ray Audette
LEP Wood, MD, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire in Coventry, UK
William A. Liston, MD, Fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, UK

...along with 8 anecdotal reports, and there was one more anecdotal report provided by Michael, one of our own members. I don't think it was the cooked aspect of any of these diets that provided the benefits (if I thought that, why on earth would I be eating a mostly raw diet, with only occasional light cooking to keep my weight up or for social reasons?). I argue that it was the PALEO aspect. Since when is Paleo not part of RPD? Is this the raw PALEO diet forum or just the raw diet forum?

[TylerDurden]

The real problem is re Price is that native tribes did indeed have women die in childbirth(and I've already shown that the much lower life-expectancy of women in the Palaeolithic(compared to men) is widely recognised as being due to a high number of deaths from childbirth:- 
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml
 so the best one can claim is that, indirectly, women in tribal times didn't have Caesarians or drugs so had fewer side-effects and were less likely to be obese(and  were a lot fitter) than  modern, more sedentary peoples. But diet alone can't cure the 1 problem human women have which is that they have a narrow birth-canal and need to have an infant pass through it with a particularly large-sized head for its overall size, inevitably resulting in issues, here and there.

[PaleoPhil]

...Now not eating grains during one's lifetime might reduce, say, the chance of schizophrenia in one's children by 1%, for example, but that's about it.

Is that based on a study or your assumption?

Down's Syndrome is a serious genetic problem which occurs mainly due to faulty cell-division and is strongly linked to advanced maternal age, thus indicating that it happens regardless of diet.

As I've stated before, I find such pronouncements based solely on your authority to be unconvincing, especially since you've shown no evidence of having read any of the studies I linked to.  

The science shows that celiac disease, a food-triggered disease, is correlated with Down's Syndrome. Here again is one of the relevant studies I listed on this:

[Screening for celiac disease can be justified in high-risk groups]
Sjöberg K, Carlsson A.
Lakartidningen. 2004 Nov 25;101(48):3912, 3915-6, 3918-9. Review. Swedish.
PMID: 15631226 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15631226

It's at least plausible that the epigenetic effects of gluten on a developing zygote or fetus may turn on the genes that produce Down's Syndrome, or something along those lines. Without further study it would be anti-scientific to just rule this out a priori, and to not follow up on such a promising avenue with further research into the cause of the correlation and further exploration and development of promising nutritional therapies (such as "Oral zinc supplementation in Down's syndrome subjects decreased infections and normalized some humoral and cellular immune parameters," http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8193451?dopt=Abstract) would be unconscionable.

Genetic illnesses are not completely divorced from environmental factors. Both genes and environment play a role and are inseparably intertwined from the moment of conception onwards. As Carlin Flora states in "Your Genes, Your Diet" (Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200410/your-genes-your-diet), "Genes are not necessarily destiny. They are influenced by the chemistry of what we consume."

Sandy Simmons has investigated the role of diet and nutrition in genetic illnesses, including Down Syndrome ("The Role of Diet in Genetic Disorders,"
http://www.ctds.info/genetic_disorders.html):

<<Down Syndrome - Down syndrome, also called trisomy 21, is a complex genetic disease that for years was said to be caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21. A recent landmark study indicated that mothers of children with Down syndrome have an imbalance in folate metabolism that may be explained, in part, by a common genetic variation in an enzyme involved in the folic acid pathway. Further studies are expected to see if maternal folic acid supplementation will reduce the incidence of the disorder. If folic acid does prove to reduce incidences of Down syndrome, then this means the chromosome abnormality found in the disorder is a feature associated with the syndrome, but was not the singular cause.

Interestingly, before "bad" genes started getting the sole blame for most birth defects, medical doctors used to think that "maternal nourishment" was a factor in Down syndrome. Unfortunately somewhere along the line this view fell out of favor.

....

On the mineral front, a number of studies on Down syndrome have linked the syndorme to zinc deficiencies. A 1994 study has shown zinc supplementation had a positive effect on DS patients.>>

One matter where I would differ with Sandy Simmons and Weston Price on treatment of genetic disorders with dietary therapies is I would speak more cautiously in terms of reduction or remission of symptoms, rather than "cure," because some people interpret cure as meaning they are no longer susceptible to the disease and can go right back to eating a SAD again. I also doubt whether all the deleterious changes wrought by genetic diseases can be reversed, even at an early age, though I suppose I cannot rule it out completely either, because dietary/nutritional therapy has not been tried sufficiently to be sure one way or the other, AFAIK.

*That reminds me, any suggestion that cooked palaeo is supposedly healthy merits inclusion in the hot topics forum. Will change the topic round.*

I didn't suggest that cooked Paleo is healthy in an absolute sense, nor even that "cooked" was the healthy aspect of the diets in the success stories and studies. Instead, I offered the science and people's experiences on easy childbirths while on PALEO diets (some may have been raw for all I know, but no one specified that, that I am aware of). Evidence that the Paleo aspect of RPD is beneficial over SAD is not the same as saying that a cooked Paleo diet is optimal.

And BTW, why does the subforum heading say "Discussions of non-RAF/non- raw topics" but not also "non-Paleo topics"?

I agree that the narrow birth canal and large heads of babies are not ideal for childbirth. Since there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary advantage to the narrow birth canal, that would suggest that it may be part of the physical degeneration that has occurred in humans over the millennia, along with shrinking body and brain size, diminishing muscles and thinning bones, narrowing of jaws and crowding of teeth, etc. You attribute most of the degeneration to cooking, and I agree that is likely a major factor, but I also suspect that the change in foods eaten was a major factor, possibly a larger one, especially given that physical degeneration appears to have accelerated more rapidly with the dawn of the Neolithic than it did with the dawn of cooking.

The good news that we can all celebrate, is that the evidence so far from all observed hunter gatherer populations and from all the reports of Paleo dieting people, is that childbirth is generally much easier on a Paleo diet than on a SAD diet. I think you and I agree that it might be even better on a RPD.

[TylerDurden]

Is that based on a study or your assumption?

It's based on having read 1,000s of studies most of which claim only a minor, unverified effect of gluten(or dairy) on various conditions like schizophrenia.

One matter where I would differ with Sandy Simmons and Weston Price on treatment of genetic disorders with dietary therapies is I would speak more cautiously in terms of reduction or remission of symptoms, rather than "cure," because some people interpret cure as meaning they are no longer susceptible to the disease and can go right back to eating a SAD again. I also doubt whether all the deleterious changes wrought by genetic diseases can be reversed, even at an early age, though I suppose I cannot rule it out completely either, because dietary/nutritional therapy has not been tried sufficiently to be sure one way or the other, AFAIK.

I think we can at least agree that WAPF/WP--inspired nonsense claims re curing people with serious genetic problems during their lifetime are bogus. There may be a(n as yet unproven) case re influence of epigenetics and gluten /down's syndrome(or not). And, so far, the benefits re diet on people with genetic-related conditions  only seem to involve slight improvements in mood or digestion, never wholesale remission of the more serious symptoms(such as mental retardation).

And BTW, why does the subforum heading say "Discussions of non-RAF/non- raw topics" but not also "non-Paleo topics"?

A minor oversight from Craig. I suppose part of the reason is that "rawpalaeo" is a new concept, seemingly more or less invented by Vinny, so that until that term came up, the emphasis was on "raw animal food diets"(besides "palaeo" was previously solely used to reference a "cooked" palaeo diet).Oh, and I think the idea was that non-palaeo topics would be left quarantined within the Primal Diet and Weston-Price forums, mostly.

I agree that the narrow birth canal and large heads of babies are not ideal for childbirth. Since there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary advantage to the narrow birth canal, that would suggest that it may be part of the physical degeneration that has occurred in humans over the millennia, along with shrinking body and brain size, diminishing muscles and thinning bones, narrowing of jaws and crowding of teeth, etc. You attribute most of the degeneration to cooking, and I agree that is likely a major factor, but I also suspect that the change in foods eaten was a major factor, possibly a larger one, especially given that physical degeneration appears to have accelerated more rapidly with the dawn of the Neolithic than it did with the dawn of cooking.

The claim re a narrow birth-canal being due to a poor diet simply doesn't hold up. If women had indeed been evolutionarily selected to have even wider birth-canals they would soon have had trouble walking(and been picked off by predators as a result)!

[William]

The claim re a narrow birth-canal being due to a poor diet simply doesn't hold up. If women had indeed been evolutionarily selected to have even wider birth-canals they would soon have had trouble walking(and been picked off by predators as a result)!

There are still a few women who are "broad where a broad should be broad", they don't walk alone and predators do not attack groups of other predators.

[PaleoPhil]

It's based on having read 1,000s of studies most of which claim only a minor, unverified effect of gluten(or dairy) on various conditions like schizophrenia.

OK, that's great that you've read 1000s of studies on gluten or dairy and schizophrenia. Could you provide me with one sample so I can get an idea of what you're referring to, please?

I think we can at least agree that WAPF/WP--inspired nonsense claims re curing people with serious genetic problems during their lifetime are bogus.

Yes, I consider him more of a creative, keen observer and adventurer than a scientist. I always try to cite other references when I cite his work or other people who refer to him. I'm also aware that anecdotes are not hard evidence, but to me they are like clues--valuable in helping figure out what areas future scientific research should investigate.

There may be a(n as yet unproven) case re influence of epigenetics and gluten /down's syndrome(or not). And, so far, the benefits re diet on people with genetic-related conditions  only seem to involve slight improvements in mood or digestion, never wholesale remission of the more serious symptoms(such as mental retardation).

I basically agree, though I haven't read all the studies on the subject, so I don't know what all the symptom improvements were, but the ones I did read were relatively minor compared to the overall disease, like you say.

A minor oversight from Craig. I suppose part of the reason is that "rawpalaeo" is a new concept, seemingly more or less invented by Vinny, so that until that term came up, the emphasis was on "raw animal food diets"(besides "palaeo" was previously solely used to reference a "cooked" palaeo diet).Oh, and I think the idea was that non-palaeo topics would be left quarantined within the Primal Diet and Weston-Price forums, mostly.

The claim re a narrow birth-canal being due to a poor diet simply doesn't hold up. If women had indeed been evolutionarily selected to have even wider birth-canals they would soon have had trouble walking(and been picked off by predators as a result)!

I don't understand you here, sorry.

[Raw Kyle]

There are still a few women who are "broad where a broad should be broad", they don't walk alone and predators do not attack groups of other predators.

Haha, never heard that phrase before.

Could someone explain to me the body type we're talking about here? What about those tennis playing Williams sisters? Their hips seem rather ample, and they are way faster and stronger than a twiggy girl. Maybe not quite as good of a long distance runner as a skinny girl, but in terms of getting away from a lion you're better off being able to sprint or fight than run for miles, you can't out run a cat that way.

[PaleoPhil]

I believe Tyler is right that today's women, on average, have narrower hips than Paleo women. Women of today with wider hips could be thought of as having a more ancestral-type physique, though this they don't necessarily have older genes, as great variations in physique can occur over relatively short time frames (as compared to evolutionary time scales) and between individuals within modern population groups. The development of narrow hips has puzzled evolutionary biologists for decades, as there doesn't seem to be an evolutionary advantage to it. Ray Audette and others have posited that changes in diet (whether types of foods or increases in cooking or both) may have been a major cause of the narrowing, which would explain why there appears to be no biological/survival advantage to it.

The good news is that even modern women report easier-than-normal pregnancies and childbirths the more ancient-like (for lack of a better term) their diet is. I haven't heard of a single report of difficult childbirth on a RPD or other Paleo-type diet yet (although I'm sure there must be some among the 300,000 or so remaining hunter-gatherers in the world). If anyone has, please let me know. Thanks.

[William]

The development of narrow hips has puzzled evolutionary biologists for decades, as there doesn't seem to be an evolutionary advantage to it. Ray Audette and others have posited that changes in diet (whether types of foods or increases in cooking or both) may have been a major cause of the narrowing, which would explain why there appears to be no biological/survival advantage to it.

The good news is that even modern women report easier-than-normal pregnancies and childbirths the more ancient-like (for lack of a better term) their diet is. I haven't heard of a single report of difficult childbirth on a RPD or other Paleo-type diet yet (although I'm sure there must be some among the 300,000 or so remaining hunter-gatherers in the world). If anyone has, please let me know. Thanks.

I too think that it is diet or more specifically, the change in hormones that causes the narrow hips.

There are reports that many of these slim women would die in childbirth were it not for surgery, the birth canal is just too narrow.

[William]

Haha, never heard that phrase before.

It's from an old Broadway musical opera, maybe "Guys and Dames" or something like that.

Could someone explain to me the body type we're talking about here?

It's the once-standard hourglass figure, seen in paintings even in the Egyptian tombs. An American actress named Johannsen comes to mind.
Not good for lightning fast escapes, but that's what the long legs and great heart and lungs of men are made for.
Females never went in harm's way.

[TylerDurden]

I believe Tyler is right that today's women, on average, have narrower hips than Paleo women.

I, of course, did NOT say anything of the sort! What I actually stated was that women in Palaeo times could not develop hips wider than a certain point as they need to walk on two legs, and the wide hips of women already force them to be slower than men(that is, the best female runners tend to have much narrower, boyish hips). So, past a very limited point, developing wide hips is an evolutionary DISadvantage, as it would render females unable to run effectively.

The good news is that even modern women report easier-than-normal pregnancies and childbirths the more ancient-like (for lack of a better term) their diet is. I haven't heard of a single report of difficult childbirth on a RPD or other Paleo-type diet yet (although I'm sure there must be some among the 300,000 or so remaining hunter-gatherers in the world). If anyone has, please let me know. Thanks.

The trouble is that palaeoanthropologists do mention that many women died in childbirth during the Palaeolithic,, thus resulting in a lower average lifespan than men by a full 5.4 years,
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml

 but also there is routine mention of tribes using herbs in order to make childbirth a little easier, indicating frequent issues with childbirth, regardless of diet. Here's a mention of the plant Blue Cohosh being routinely used by Native Americans in order to make childbirth a bit easier and avoid the usual complications:-

http://www.buydominica.com/womenhealth/blue-cohosh.php

As for cases involving difficult childbirth among RPDers, we need more studies but it would be most unlikely to find no evidence of difficult childbirth such as breech-births or whatever.

[PaleoPhil]

I, of course, did NOT say anything of the sort! What I actually stated was that women in Palaeo times could not develop hips wider than a certain point as they need to walk on two legs, and the wide hips of women already force them to be slower than men(that is, the best female runners tend to have much narrower, boyish hips). So, past a very limited point, developing wide hips is an evolutionary DISadvantage, as it would render females unable to run effectively.

Oh, sorry, misunderstood you.

The trouble is that palaeoanthropologists do mention that many women died in childbirth during the Palaeolithic,, thus resulting in a lower average lifespan than men by a full 5.4 years,
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml

Yes, I did understand you the first time on that.

Here's what that article says: "Paleolithic females died younger than males due to the stresses of pregnancy and childbirth while still carrying the burdens of food-collecting and moving camp."

That seems to indicate that some problems were having to walk quite a bit and carry loads that were the reasons for the female--and perhaps some infant--mortality, rather than dystocia.

It also notes that wild animal infant mortality was three times higher than Stone Age human infant mortality. Wild and pasture-fed animals are widely acknowledged to have much easier births than grain-fed animals (I was informed on the general ease of pasture-fed births by the ranchers at Adams ranch in Florida), so dystocia doesn't seem to be the main cause of infant mortality in the wild.

but also there is routine mention of tribes using herbs in order to make childbirth a little easier, indicating frequent issues with childbirth, regardless of diet. Here's a mention of the plant Blue Cohosh being routinely used by Native Americans in order to make childbirth a bit easier and avoid the usual complications:-

http://www.buydominica.com/womenhealth/blue-cohosh.php

Thanks for the reference. I'll check it out.

As for cases involving difficult childbirth among RPDers, we need more studies but it would be most unlikely to find no evidence of difficult childbirth such as breech-births or whatever.

How far back do you think most Stone Agers were RPDers?

[TylerDurden]

Here's what that article says: "Paleolithic females died younger than males due to the stresses of pregnancy and childbirth while still carrying the burdens of food-collecting and moving camp."

That seems to indicate that some problems were having to walk quite a bit and carry loads that were the reasons for the female--and perhaps some infant--mortality, rather than dystocia.

First of all, human cultures generally expect the men to carry loads, not the women, for obvious reasons.It's only in very male-dominated cultures that the opposite occurs, and Palaeo times were very egalitarian in their ways, judging from reports. Secondly, "walking quite a bit" doesn't increase mortality(LOL!),it actually makes people fitter and healthier. In short, the deaths from childbirth issue is the only decent explanation for the extreme difference in  lifespan between Palaeo men and women - and, remember, women in modern times normally well outlive men, so for them to have a 5-year-shorter lifespan than men in Palaeo times, there has to be a major reason for that, which only deaths from childbirth can be a reason for(unless you're implying some unusually unlikely claim such as that predators mostly killed the women in Palaeo tribes).

It also notes that wild animal infant mortality was three times higher than Stone Age human infant mortality. Wild and pasture-fed animals are widely acknowledged to have much easier births than grain-fed animals (I was informed on the general ease of pasture-fed births by the ranchers at Adams ranch in Florida), so dystocia doesn't seem to be the main cause of infant mortality in the wild.

I'm afraid that even wild animals on natural, raw diets have difficult births.Granted, they have fewer issues than humans(on healthy raw diets) as they have a wide enough birth-canal for their offspring, but they still have birth-defects and  common problems re delivery of infants. Plus, they would be bound to have a higher infant mortality than humans as they would be less able than humans  to defend their offspring from predators.

That said, the 20-30% infant mortality rate for human infants in the Palaeolithic  is extremely high and is easily explained if a large proportion of such derived from female deaths in childbirth/pregnancy.

How far back do you think most Stone Agers were RPDers?

  Well, judging from the evidence, it seems as though 250,000 to 300,000 years ago, was the advent of cooking, with everyone being rawpalaeo up to that point.

[TylerDurden]

OK, that's great that you've read 1000s of studies on gluten or dairy and schizophrenia. Could you provide me with one sample so I can get an idea of what you're referring to, please?

Here's a sample :-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14661986 (omega 3)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15276666

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423158

http://www.childrensdisabilities.info/allergies/developmentaldisordersprotein7.html

[/quote]

[PaleoPhil]

Secondly, "walking quite a bit" doesn't increase mortality(LOL!)...

I've grown a bit weary of your increasing use of ridicule, such as responding to other people's points with "LOL", which I find to be off-putting, rather than persuasive, so I'm taking a break from the back-and-forth for now and I'll focus more on providing information. You're free to continue ridiculing it, of course, but I may not respond directly.

So here's some more info I hope some people find to be a positive contribution:

*** Orgasmic Childbirth ***

The following of the anecdotes I listed before is the report by an MD of a Paleo-dieting patient having an "orgasmic" birth. Below that is a couple of links further confirming the possibility of births that are not only not painful, but orgasmic. The first is the Website of an organization that specializes in assisting mothers to have orgasmic births. They use mostly nondietary techniques that can also help in easing childbirth.

Easier birth...(date: 12/01/03)
Paleo Diet Success Stories
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/success_stories

I had a thought that I suspect occurred to you as well. I had a patient who at 42 had a baby at home 8 yrs after her last one and had been on Paleo for 12 months prior and described it as, ". . . a very different experience, I told my husband about an hour after that baby was born, my gosh honey, I could do that again. Dr Sebring, it may sound strange but pushing that baby out was almost orgasmic."

I don't know about hunter gatherers but I suspect they do not have the degree of difficulty modern women have delivering babies. Your research has been of magnificent importance to the health of our small town.

Lane Sebring M.D.
Wimberly, Texas

Orgasmic Birth
Winner of the Audience Choice Award at the 2008 Motherbaby International Film Festival
http://www.orgasmicbirth.com/
"It is possible to have an ecstatic birth—in fact, that is the best natural high that I know of." --Ina May Gaskin, Certified Professional Midwife and author (she advocates a meatless diet and avoidance of processed "junk food" but recommends B12 supplements for vegetarian mothers and doesn't require her customers to be vegetarians)

Orgasmic Childbirth: The Fun Doesn't End at Conception!
by Laura Shanley
http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/sensual/orgasmic.html
"I had been told to expect a 'dogging pain,' but was unprepared for the sensation of sexual ecstasy, the voluptuous feeling of penetration...."
-From They Don't Call it a Peak Experience for Nothing, by Ruth Claire(Mothering, Fall 1989)

---***---

*** Gluten and Schizophrenia ***

Here's an article and study link on a case study of a coeliac disease patient who had far more than a "minor" effect on his diagnosed schizophrenia via gluten elimination:

Gluten and schizophrenia SPECT scan
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/06/gluten-and-schizophrenia-spect-scan.html

Schizophrenic symptoms and SPECT abnormalities in a coeliac patient: regression after a gluten-free diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9408073

Dietary challenge is the true test of whether gluten elimination helps schizophrenia, not antibody tests, which can provide false negatives and false positives and which do not take into account all the harmful effects of gluten. Ron Hoggan at the PaleoFood forum has lots of info on this and co-authored "Dangerous Grains." I personally know two people who experienced dramatic health improvements from eliminating gluten despite negative antibody tests.

Here is some more schizophrenia research as reported by Loren Cordain in "Cereal Grains: Humanity's Double-Edged Sword":

<<It has been more than 30 years since Dohan first formulated the hypothesis that opioid peptides found in the enzymatic digests of cereal grain gluten are a potentiating factor evoking schizophrenia in susceptible genotypes [327, 328]. In a meta-analysis of the more than 50 articles regarding the role of cereal grains in the etiology of schizophrenia published between 1966 and 1990, Lorenz [329] concluded: 'In populations eating little or no wheat, rye and barley, the prevalence of schizophrenia is quite low and about the same regardless of type of acculturating influence.' In support of this conclusion are multiple clinical studies [330, 332] which have shown that schizophrenic symptoms improved on gluten-free diets and worsened upon reintroduction. Furthermore, the incidence of schizophrenia is about 30 times higher in celiac patients than in the general population [329], and schizophrenics have elevated circulating IgA antibodies to gliadin [333].

There is increasing recognition that in a subset of schizophrenic patients, autoimmune mechanisms are involved in the etiology of the disease [334, 335]. Schizophrenics maintain several immunological abnormalities including increased prevalence of autoimmune disease and antinuclear and other autoantibodies, decreased lymphocyte interleukin-2 (IL-2) production, increased serum IL-2 receptor concentration, increased serum IL-6 concentrations and an association with HLA antigens [334, 335]. Similar to other autoimmune diseases, cereal grains may potentiate their putative autoimmune effects in schizophrenia via molecular mimicry in which self antigens in brain tissue are recognized and destroyed by autoaggressive T lymphocytes because of the structural similarity between brain antigens and foreign dietary antigens. Although this hypothesis may be operative in some schizophrenics, the rapid remission of symptoms by gluten-free diets, observed in clinical trials [330, 332], is suggestive that an acute mechanism may be additionally responsible, since it is unlikely that damaged neuronal cells could regenerate in such a short time frame. In this regard, it has been long recognized that certain gluten peptides derived from wheat have high opioid-like activity that is naloxone reversible [336, 337]. The structural identity of these opioid peptides derived from the enzymatic digest of wheat gluten have recently been characterized and sequenced [338, 340], and there is significant evidence utilizing radiolabelled gliadin isotopes to show that these peptides reach opioid receptors in the brain and peripheral organs [329]. Thus, it is possible that cereal grains may elicit behavioral changes via direct interaction with central nervous system opioid receptors or perhaps via simultaneous immune-mediated reactions against central nervous system antigens.>>

327 Dohan FC: Wheat consumption and hospital admissions for schizophrenia during World War II.
Am J Clin Nutr 1966;18:7.10.
328 Dohan FC: Genetic hypothesis of idiopathic schizophrenia: Its exorphin connection. Schizophr
Bull 1988;14:489.494.
329 Lorenz K: Cereals and schizophrenia. Adv Cereal Sci Technol 1990;10:435.469.
330 Dohan FC, Grasberger JC, Lowell FM, Johnston HT, Arbegast AW: Relapsed schizophrenics:
More rapid improvement on a milk and cereal free diet. Br J Psychiatry 1969;115:595.596.
331 Dohan FC, Grasberger JC: Relapsed schizophrenics: Early discharge from the hospital after cerealfree,
milk free diet. Am J Psychiatry 1973;130:685.688.
332 Singh MM, Kay SR: Wheat gluten as a pathogenic factor in schizophrenia. Science 1976;191:
401.402.
333 Reichelt KL, Landmark J: Specific IgA antibody increases in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 1995;
37:410.413.
334 Ganguli R, Brar JS, Cehngappa KN, Yang ZW, Nimgaonkar VL, Rabin BS: Autoimmunity in
schizophrenia: A review of recent findings. Ann Med 1993;25:489.496.
335 Noy S, Achiron A, Laor N: Schizophrenia and autoimmunity . A possible etiological mechanism?
Neuropsychobiology 1994;30:157.159.
336 Ziadrou C, Streaty RA, Klee WA: Opioid peptides derived from food proteins. J Biol Chem 1979;
254:2446.2449.
337 Huebner FR, Lieberman KW, Rubino RP, Wall JS: Demonstration of high opioid-like activity in
isolated peptides from wheat gluten hydrolysates. Peptides 1984;5:1139.1147.
338 Fukudome S, Yoshikawa M: Opioid peptides derived from wheat gluten: Their isolation and characterization.
FEBS Lett 1992;296:107.111.
339 Fukudome S, Yoshikawa M: A novel peptide derived from wheat gluten. FEBS Lett 1993;316:
17.19.
340 Fukudome S, Jinsmaa Y, Matsukawa T, Sasaki R, Yoshikawa M: Release of opioid peptides, gluten
exorphins by the action of pancreatic elastase. FEBS Lett 1997;412:475.479.


Luckily, physicians like Hadjivassilou, Grunewald, Davies-Jones, Fine, Braly and others are educating their colleagues on the fact that there is more to gluten sensitivity than "celiac disease" and flattened villi--there are other problems, like neurological disease:

<<Gluten sensitivity is best defined as a state of heightened immunological responsiveness in genetically susceptible people.15 This definition does not imply bowel involvement. That gluten sensitivity is regarded as principally a disease of the small bowel is a historical misconception.28 Gluten sensitivity can be primarily and at times exclusively a neurological disease.29 The absence of an enteropathy should not preclude patients from treatment with a gluten-free diet. Early diagnosis and removal of the trigger factor by the introduction of gluten-free diet is a promising therapeutic intervention.>>
--M Hadjivassiliou, R A Grünewald, G A B Davies-Jones, "Gluten sensitivity," Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 2002, http://jnnp.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/72/5/560