>>Remarks about wheat:

>>1) Experiments with bread don't prove anything about wheat, since bread
>>contains Maillard molecules which are not present in raw wheat.

>>2) Experiments with raw, unsprouted wheat don't prove anything because
>>wheat contains phytic acid which is toxic. I would only be convinced by
>>an experiment with raw, sprouted wheat.

>>3) Of course, there are gluten-intolerant persons, but the question is:
>>does sprouted wheat cause troubles among gluten-tolerants?

>You have a gift for getting to the heart of a matter! Doesn't Burger claim
>that _sprouted_ wheat has no taste change? And that that is support for its
>uniquely bad status even if raw? I think wheat will be shown to be (and in
>many ways already has been shown to be) the worst of a bad lot: grains in
>general.

Coming back on this point with further info :
The main reason why Burger treats wheat differently than the other cereals
resides in the heavy artificial selection to which the plant has been
submitted since Prehistorical times. Comparative studies of protein content
of spontaneous varieties of cereals  and modern varieties of the same  show
the geatest variability for  wheat (triticum). I've extracted the following
from my files :
                        Lipids %   Fibers %     Proteins %

Spontaneous Engrain     2.64            2.33    22.83
Modern Wheat            1.62            2.78    14.50
This in turn represents more an indication than a proof. However these
figures and the prevalence of coeliac disease would seem to point in the
direction of a specific problem with modern wheat (triticum aestivum). It
would be interesting to go to Turkey where the old prehistoric variety still
grows spontaneously  and make a few experiments with raw engrain (triticum
boeoticum).

Taking into consideration the fact that there are over 60 species of edible
cereals on earth, I would kindly advise Mr TU not to bother anymore about
reintroducing this one...

>>Remarks about milk and evolution:

>>1) The goat, before the cow, has been domesticated less than 10000 years
>>ago. Of course, milk is not usually a food for adult animals, but since
>>we have got the genetic information to produce enzymes that digest milk,
>>we just need some genes to tell us that this production should continue
>>during adulthood.

>One of Bruno's viral "DNA program updates" could suffice here.

>>2) That our ancestors didn't eat X doesn't mean we shouldn't eat X. Our
>>genetic material is more flexible than we might think: our brain was
>>certainly not designed to prove theorems in mathematics.
>
>As most people are proof of! ;) I love your comments and participation!!!
>You truly seem to have an open, non-dogmatic mind.

Sorry to interrupt your honeymoon, guys, but I think it necessary to recall
a few strong principles without which our forum would be mere farting in the
wind...
It seems to me that if we do not take it for granted that our  adaptability
to  process  new  foodstuffs  is limited within the strict confines of some
sound organic principles, the whole foundations  of instincto just  fall
apart. Of course the fact that our ancestors didn't eat X doesn't mean that
we shouldn't eat X, but we don't have   any other basis than our
evolutionary hypothesis to start with. So let's first study the case of
instinctictive paleolithic nutrition, and we'll see later on for the rest of
the diet .

Concerning dairy products, I forgot to mention that the main drive  behind
the invasion of new milk-based  products coming on the market these last ten
years is the fact that marketing studies have showed that the taste of pure
milk is negatively perceived by a vast majority of children. And the milk
industries are desperate to find any recipe which can make it more palatable
for the kids  (by far the major consumers of dairy products, if we are to
exclude  butter and cheese naturally )

Cheers
Denis