On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> What's really the reason for the rule "no grains"?
>
> They are edible raw.

The prevailing view here, I think, is that they are not, or that
the quantities in which they might have been eaten are too small
to have provided significant selection pressure for adaptation.

> (In small quantities, and soaked in bigger quantities).

Yes, and this is a fact relevant to certain legumes as well, such
as lentils, which can be eaten after soaking and rinsing.

> 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.

The complaint about phytic acid is that it inhibits mineral
absorption by binding to the minerals.  But precisely the same
thing is true of oxalic acid, which is found in many paleo foods,
including meats.

A few months ago I bought a product for scrubbing rust stains in
the bathtub.  It was a powdered cleaner called "Zud," and it
worked very well.  On reading the label I learned that the active
ingredient was oxalic acid.  It works by binding strongly to the
iron oxide particles, just as it binds to minerals in food.  It
is preposterous to reject grains because of phytic acid while
accepting spinach, rhubarb and other sources of oxalic acid.

The real complaint against grains is probably more about lectins,
I think.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]