Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:49:49 -0700 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> I have no problem with you or anyone else adopting
> your own
> criteria,
I'm not, really. I think we have to measure foods that
may be considered paleo with the same yardstick we
measure everything else. If a food ain't good for you
- it ain't good for you.
> Nuts are clearly
> paleo, but we have some people here saying that we
> shouldn't eat
> them because they contain anti-nutrients.
So, instead you're saying that some dairy MAY be paleo
even though most on this list would agree that dairy
is a definite no-no?
>
> > There is ample evidence that dairy in
> > general, as well as grains and beans, should be
> > avoided even if we COULD consider them paleo.
>
> If that is correct then we must abandon the premise
> that paleo
> foods are the best foods, right?
Not at all. What I'm saying is whether or not a food
is paleo should be the starting point. You're nuts
analogy proves this out.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
|
|
|