Paul "there are many people who eat lots of grain with no ill effects"

Here we go again.  Defending basic paleo principles on what is supposed to
be a support list.

I believe the statement above is an absolute falsehood.  The negative
effects of grain consumption in humans is widely varied, but not one person
who walks this earth has the physiology to escape its harmful effects.
We're just not built to consume the stuff,  and the body recognizes this
fact in various ways from person to person.  (I find it a fascinating
question, one perhaps not appropriate for this list, why it is that we
decided to give up Eden for the security of the farm).

Now, did pre-neolithic man and his precursors eat wild grains as part of
his regular diet?  I think probably not, except in times of famine, and
assuming he could recognize it as food.  But what if he did?  What if we
were able to find evidence that this was taking place?  It makes the
consumption of grain no more right than the empirical fact that today we
eat tons and tons of aspartame though the stuff is surely killing us.

It's a big assumption that just because you may not see the immediate
effects of grain consumption that eating grains is a smart thing to do.  (I
wonder how much of this is wishful thinking -- the desire to eat the stuff
or inability to stop eating it clouds the judgement a little, makes it a
little harder to pick up what might otherwise be obvious signals).  It
seems to me wise to avoid grains in any form.  Personally, I feel the cost
of my being wrong about this -- having to give up the occasional
grain-based meal -- is much, much less than the cost of my being dead
right.  It's a basic, basic paleo premise that I see no way around.

Jim Swayze