On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Jim Swayze wrote:

> Todd> As far as I can see, no one has argued that eating grains is
> necessary to maintain health.  I also don't think anyone claims that the
> only permissible foods are those that are necessary to maintain health.
>
> First of all, I don't like the term "permissible."  Maybe I'm being overly
> concerned with semantics, but to me it places the onus of personal dietary
> decisions outside rather than inside.

That's true.  So do terms like "cheating" and "forbidden fruit."

> You decide what's best for you and
> go for it.

Yes.

> Second, it seems perfectly logical to me that if it ain't
> necessary, and it might just kill you, you should avoid the stuff
> altogether.

It depends on how you interpret "might."  There are more studies
showing a link between red meat and colon cancer than there are
studies that don't.  Red meat is not necessary, and if that
research is on to something, it might kill us.  It's not so easy
determining which foods might kill us.

> Now I'm assuming you're not arguing that grains are good for
> humans in any quantity.

That's ambiguous.  Do you mean "You're not arguing that there's a
quantity of grains that it's good for humans to eat" or "You're
not arguing that grains are good for humans when eaten in any
quantity at all"?  Since grains are reasonably nutrient-dense,
and nutrients are good for humans, I think small amounts are good
for humans.  But since the energy content of grains is
overwhelmingly carbohydrate, large amounts aren't so good.

From a paleo perspective, a dense carb source that is unlikely to
be overconsumed is a good thing.

> Or that they won't kill you in large quantities.

One of the troubles with eating grains in large quantities is
that it cuts down on whatever else you might have been eating
instead.  But I agree that a "grain-based diet" is likely to be
problematic in a lot of ways, even if it doesn't kill you.

> What this is really about is that you want to have an occassional serving
> of grain and claim you see no ill effects from eating the stuff.

That's a peculiar thing to say.  Although it's true that I see no
ill effects from occasional grains consumption, but my alleged
desire to consume grains has nothing to do with this argument.

> Well, eat
> some grain.  But personally I cannot escape the thought that the same brand
> of thinking that leads one to believe that it's acceptable from a paleo
> standpoint might lead one to the conclusion that the Burpacola Indians of
> South Wangatang were healthily and regularly popping M&Ms 15,000 years ago.

I have no clue why you would think the "same brand of thinking"
would lead to that conclusion.

> It's quite a balm for the conscience to find real or imagined ancient
> models which allow one to do what they want to do. Rationalization, I think
> it's called.  Sorry if I'm wrong about that in your particular situation or
> if I'm being unfair.

Another balm is to resort to psychoanalyzing the person who puts
forward a position, rather than focusing on the position itself.

> Todd> The question you should be asking is why people suddenly began to
> consume, in increasing quantities, foods that according to you make them
> sick in any quantity.
>
> Actually, the dose response opinion is yours, if I recall correctly.  I'm
> just not sure about the quantity issue.  The reason people began to consume
> grains is that we are by nature lazy and risk-averse.

If paleolithic people did not regard grains as food, then the
trick is to explain why one day they started eating them.
Laziness won't explain it.  What is the scenario?  One day, some
17,000 years ago, some lazy hunter-gatherers were loafing around
the savanna.

One of them said, "You know, this hunting is getting to be a
drag.  The hell with wild boar, let's eat some grains."

Another smacked his forehead and said, "Duh!  Why didn't we think
of this before?"

The trouble with this and similar explanations is that they
require that it suddenly seemed like a good idea to eat what no
one was previously eating.  But why should any such thing
suddenly seem like a good idea?

To my mind, a much more likely scenario is that when hominids
started living where the grains were growing, they *immediately*
tried to use them, and anything else that was there, for food.
But, for reasons that we are familiar with, their use of grains
would have been in small amounts and intermittent -- like their
use of many other foods.

Eventually, about 17,000 years ago, some people put enough effort
into grain-gathering to leave traces for archeologists to notice,
and five or six thousand years later they started cultivating
them.

> I'm not entirely
> sure we knew the price that would need to be paid because of the switch.
> Maybe we did and willingly traded the healthy uncertainty of Paradise for
> the sick security of the agricultural life.

Don't forget, however, that the switch involved much more than
just diet.  It involved a total change in living conditions for
most people: cities, hygiene issues, communicable diseases,
forced labor, and so on.  It's not so easy to tease out the
contribution made by grains to this mess.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]