Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 14 Jul 1999 20:21:52 GMT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> 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.
==========================================================
|
|
|