Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 2 Sep 1998 11:24:02 -0400 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I think you're right "on base." Applying the "stone and spear" concept to
determine what our paleolithic forebearers could or could not have eaten
should not be taken as a CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE on what WE should or should
not be eating. Rather, it should be used as a way of encouraging us to do
more serious thinking on the advisability of some modern-day foods that
we'd otherwise take for granted.
And by "thinking," I DON'T mean somebody's simplistic pronouncement on
whether a food-in-question is considered "paleo" or not -- or debates over
whether somebody who chooses to include that food (small amounts of rice,
for instance) can "legitimately" be said to be following a paleo lifestyle.
In my case, I avoid all dairy products because of the substantial mucus
they cause me. I also avoid most grains because I tend to be sensitive to
them. Rice doesn't bother me, though, and I include small amounts of it
(especially my favorite, wild rice) in my diet, as well as chickpeas and
black beans. I haven't noticed any problems so far, nor do I anticipate
any.
Let's make sure the paleo principles remain guidelines only, and not
gospel.
Jim
|
|
|