>  From:    Mateja Mikek <[log in to unmask]>
>  Subject: Re: Bread Withdrawals
>
>  Sniffing cocoa powder helps me. But it as to be cocoa powder, not just
>  any food.

Mommy, what's wrong with that woman? Why's her nose all brown?

Stay away, dear! That's one of those... cocoa whiffers.
  Poor wretches -- you can never tell what they're going
  to sniff next. ;-)
==========================================================

>  From:    KATHRYN P ROSENTHAL <[log in to unmask]>
>  Subject: Re: Oil -- is it paleo
>
>  Caveman Grog was probably not eating too many tomatoes either...

Would have to agree -- aren't tomatoes a New World food?
BTW they were considered poisonous not long ago; thought
to contain too much oxalic acid.
==========================================================

>  From:    Wally Day <[log in to unmask]>
>  Subject: Re: Meats vs. grain/legume
>
>  > >
>  > >    ...Could grain/legume be and
>  > >    "anti-meat" and vice-versa?
>  > >
>  > Possible, but you could upgrade your conjecture
>  > to an hypothesis by citing some statistics or
>
>  Do I detect some sparks here? Let me first assure you
>  that I am NOT anti-paleo, I am pro-paleo. I was merely
>  curious as to why the paleo theory does not seem to be
>  100% consistent (in my experience)...

How it works is this: in increasing order of consistency
and observational confirmation, an idea follows:

  Speculation
  Conjecture
  Hypothesis
  Theory
  Law

Ray unearthed real data to support his Paleodiet
Hypothesis. Unsupported ideas and speculation are
a dime a dozen, and in this forum seem mostly to
distract from the purpose of Paleodiet support.

If Paleo seems to have some gaps, then further
study & discovery, along with real field experience
(that means from all of us) will make the refinements
needed to firm it up on its way to Theory.

>
>  ... absence of evidence does not
>  > equate to evidence of absence
>
>  That last statement makes no sense.

Far from not making sense, it is an important tool
in one's logical-analysis toolkit.

Here's an example: that nobody can prove that God
does not exist does not imply that She/He does exist.

>  > As for how grain/legume digests poorly and
>  > afflicts the consumer with allergens, addictive
>  > opiate-like peptides etc, that's old news.
>
>  Not necessarily true. I will grant you that an
>  occasional bean meal will cause bloating and gas. But
>  the *conventional* wisdom is that the body can adjust
>  to beans over the long haul and "learn" to properly
>  digest them.

Provide some facts to back up this wishy-washy, unsupported
assertion. It doesn't matter in the long run since beans
are non-Paleo. They are inedible raw and only partially so
when fire/water processed.

So who cares whether grains/beans prove to be incompatible
with Paleo, unless one is moving from the former to the
latter and needs support?

I tire of this listserver being "mugged" by those who
only seem interested in airing their pet speculations and
religious convictions. How about some on-topics?
==========================================================

>  From:    Nicole Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>  Subject: Re: Bread Withdrawals
>
>  Could anyone please tell me if flax seed oil is Paleo?

Controversial, but in my experience I find that too much
gives me brain-fog and eye twitches identical to those
when I eat bread/gluten. YMMV.

Flax may have been around since Paleo times but it might
not have been considered good to eat regardless.

==========================================================