The negative
> effects of grain consumption in humans is widely varied, but not one
person
> who walks this earth has the physiology to escape its harmful effects.
> We're just not built to consume the stuff,  and the body recognizes this
> fact in various ways from person to person.  > Now, did pre-neolithic man
and his precursors eat wild grains as part of
> his regular diet?  I think probably not, except in times of famine, and
> assuming he could recognize it as food.  But what if he did?  What if we
> were able to find evidence that this was taking place?  It makes the
> consumption of grain no more right than the empirical fact that today we
> eat tons and tons of aspartame though the stuff is surely killing us.
>
> It's a big assumption that just because you may not see the immediate
> effects of grain consumption that eating grains is a smart thing to do.
(I
> wonder how much of this is wishful thinking -- the desire to eat the stuff
> or inability to stop eating it clouds the judgement a little, makes it a
> little harder to pick up what might otherwise be obvious signals).  It
> seems to me wise to avoid grains in any form.  Personally, I feel the cost
> of my being wrong about this -- having to give up the occasional
> grain-based meal -- is much, much less than the cost of my being dead
> right.  It's a basic, basic paleo premise that I see no way around.
>
> Jim Swayze
Funny, you sound just like the early proponents of a carbohydrate based low
fat low meat diet about 20 years ago, but just substitute the words meat and
fat for grain.
Certainly, I have suffered from grain and potatoes, but I don't think we can
honestly say that all people suffer from eating grains.  I don't think we
have that kind of data.
P

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