Todd > if the foreign protein theory is correct, the rate at which the
foreign proteins are introduced should not be a critical variable, since
it's what happens when they get in that is supposed to matter.

But that's exactly my point.  They foreign proteins don't get in.  Just
like whole corn goes mostly undigested, my theory is that the proteins in
whole wheat flour aren't absorbed as well as those in white flour.
Whatever makes the wheat "whole" buffers against absorption by the
digestive system.

Todd > But the foreign protein theory, according to Ray, says that
introducing even small amounts of the proteins into the system causes
disproportionate reactions, not a "dose-response" curve.

Well, maybe Ray's wrong.  Does it really make any sense that the amount of
foreign protein introduced makes no difference?

Todd > the difference between the first step and the second is not the
presence or absence of foreign proteins.  It's the use of frankenfats,
sweeteners, refined ingredients, and additives.  Since these are the marks
of 20th century food, there's your smoking gun for heart disease.

That's your theory.  One competing theory I'm offering here is that the
remarkable increase in the processing of food in the 20th century has led
to the ability of the body to take on more foreign proteins.

> I don't know what would make it clearer.  The theory predicts that the
Tarahumara should be dropping like flies from their high-carb, corn and
bean based diet.  But they are extraordinarily healthy.

Hold on.  Your theory predicts that.  Mine says that they should not be as
poorly off as those of us eating processed foods.