Bill <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Probably because of availability, our ancestors couldn't have eaten any
> significant amount of wheat, raw or otherwise.  Without farming, there
> are no "amber waves of grain" that I know of.

I agree that farming and cooking can turn food which is eaten very sparingly
into a main staple, thus making it more likely to cross the threshold of
tolerance. However, it should be noted that all grains are not equally harmful
(rice isn't a problem for celiacs). I am sure that if wild wheat was used, there
would be less "diseases of civilization". FWIW, G.C. Burger, who is anti-wheat,
is not against "bearded wheat" (which is not wheat despite its name).

Hans Kylberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>4) Peanuts:
>>5) Cashews:
>
>Are beans.

I know, but just saying "are beans" isn't a convincing argument for me (in fact,
it isn't an argument at all). The cashew "nut" (which is a bean, I know), grows
just outside the "cashew apple", which is an edible fruit. Why wouldn't a
paleo-human pick the "nut" as well as the fruit? I admit that the shell is very
hard, but it's not much easier to crack a macadamia nut. I suppose that both
could be cracked with simple stone tools (although I have never tried myself).

>>6) Soy, Limas and other large beans:
>>7) Potatoes, yams, turnips:
>
>I think the idea is to be on the safe side. Perhaps there are things we could
>actually eat although they are on the "forbidden" list, but as we do not know
>for sure it is better to aviod them. There is still enough left :-)
>(Although I personally have some problem finding a good variety of vegetables
>that I like, but that would not be better with inclusion of the "forbidden"
>ones. I stick to fruit instead.)

...And for me, the "safe" side is still to eat 100% raw. Which doesn't mean I
won't one day venture outside. But having a diet consisting mostly of meat and
fruits doesn't really satisfies me. Fruits or meat don't replace vegetables.


Best wishes,

Jean-Louis
[log in to unmask]