On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:21:40 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>  One rule is
>"no grains," and another rule is "you can eat anything that is
>edible raw."  And the Master Rule is supposed to be: "Eat only
>what our paleolithic ancestors ate."

What's really the reason for the rule "no grains"?

They are edible raw.
(In small quantities, and soaked in bigger quantities).
Most are from the old world.
They are gathered by some primates and were eaten at least in mesolithicum.
They occur in grasslands (obviously) and savannah-like circumstances.

What are grains anyway? I suppose grass seeds are ment.
I understand that annually nutritious plant seeds like from grass have
antinutrients to protect themselves.
I understand that a good percentage of people *today* are sensible to them.
But it seems it wasn't the case in older ages.

Grains were manipulated in so many ways by breeding, but no attempt was made
to get a no-phytin grain. Or even low-phytin grain.

Could it be that it is exactely the evolutionary advantage of humans that
their digestion can cope with grass seeds?

Well, obviously it was.

The first question is ment serious.

Regards, Amadeus