>
> Correct. The evidence is they started gathering them 17,000 years ago, and
> started growing them 11,000 years ago. The 17,000 years is still too short
> to consider these a Paleolithic food.
>
> Grains cause so many health problems I don't understand why people are
> coming up with arguments to justify them in the diet. See Ron Hoggan's
book
> Dangerous Grains.
>
> Don.

That is not what we are doing...........at least I am not.  But for
intellectual honesty, it is important to understand what part grains played
in the diet of man before agriculture, and this may give some insight why
there are many people who eat lots of grain with no ill effects.  I'm not
one of them.  My body has been damaged because of grains and excessive
carbohydrates in general, and I am now a Type 2 Diabetic.  I control my
diabetes by minimizing carbohydrate intake, and most of what I get is by raw
or cooked lower carb vegetables, and some fruit and sweet potatoes.  The
results have been incredible, with all my numbers getting
better..........weight, glucose, triglycerides, cholesterol, proteinurea,
etc.
But it is important not to get on the bandwagon of backing up Paleo with
erroneous statements, like, "Paleolithic people did not ever eat any grains
because they couldn't process them"
Better to say they were, at best a small part of the diet, because it is
obvious some humans back then were eating them and slowly making them a part
of the culture before large scale planting and processing.  Otherwise, they
would never have been used as food.
(PS.  I was taken in by nice sounding but not accurate arguments a few
decades ago in the arguments for vegetarianism and macrobiotic diets, and
I'd like the arguments for Paleo to stay a little more honest).
Paul

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Cape Lookout Mail Server]