[log in to unmask] wrote:

>Todd> The usual rule is "no grains," and I do agree that a grain-based
>diet is deeply problematic.
>
>If it's deeply problematic, why leave that door even partially open?
>Even non-gluten grains contain antinutrients.  And we've discussed ad
>nauseum how the peptide structures in gluten grains are so structurally
>similar to some human protein structures that autoimmune disease results
>from their consumption.  And that's to say nothing of the high carb part
>of the equation.  Maybe some people can eat them with no issues, perhaps
>they can't.  Why roll the dice on what had to have been a rare dietary
>adjunct?
>
>

Note that I don't advocate a high-carb use of grains.  I think anyone
who is consuming, say, less than 100g of carbohydrate a day is in the
lowcarb category, so my comments should be seen in that context.

I don't think the mere presence of antinutrients makes a food
unacceptable, and there are unquestionably paleo foods, such as spinach,
that contain antinutrients.

As for the gluten problem (which may not pertain to oats), I think there
are plenty of unanswered questions here.  Why is it that the
longest-lived people on earth, the Okinawans, are able to eat gluten
every day (in noodles) without succumbing to autoimmune disease?  Why,
for that matter, are there people with severe allergic reactions to
foods that seem unquestionably paleo, such as shellfish and
strawberries?  Things such as oats, being seasonally available, would
have been no more rare than berries, and the carb content is
comparable.  Some people on this list object to even small amounts of
sucrose, yet sucrose is present in many fruits.

>Todd > My view is that hominids relied on food processing technologies
>for survival, beginning with their exodus from the tropical forests.
>
>Your use of the term "for survival" seems to imply a Hobbesian existence
>for these new prairie beings.
>
Yes, I think the transition must have been difficult.  Foods that were
abundant in the forest were no longer available, and evidence suggests
that they had to start out as scavengers, competing with hyenas and
other animals at that level of the food chain.  Gradually, they moved up
in the food chain and became hunters.

>  You cannot deny at least that humans fare
>very well on food that requires no processing whatsover save a rock
>against a skull or a spear into a side.  No doubt in times of scarcity
>we searched for alternate food sources -- and had to "process" them to
>make them edible.  Doesn't make those food sources ideal.
>
>

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  Are you saying that humans
turn to non-meat foods only in times of scarcity?


>Todd > The cultivation of grains, of all things, in the neolithic period
>makes no sense if people weren't already eating them.
>
>Somebody somewhere came up with the idea of sticking these grass seeds
>in the ground and waiting around until they came back up.  No doubt
>that person or group of people had consumed the seeds before.
>

This would be a tedious and pointless exercise unless the seeds were
seen as pretty valuable and worth the work.  Why would they think such a
thing?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]





>  But
>agriculture swept the world, coming and going in waves but eventually
>winning over the entire world, and found its way to people who had
>probably never considered consuming grass seed.
>
>