>This isn't an argument for or against eating grains, a proposition to which
>I am indifferent.  It is an argument against the proposition that we
>shouldn't eat them because paleo people never did.  I am skeptical of that
>proposition.

I agree but only to a certain extent.  The grains then were obviously far,
far different from what have are today.  And the amount they ate before the
ag. rev. was somewhere between slim and none, I'm sure.  It had to be!
Grain is seasonal and took enough work that it couldn't have been more
than... well, a pimple on the a** of the early human diet.  Know what I
mean?  And I'd be willing to bet there were and perhaps ARE tribes or entire
generations that ate no grain at all.  Not all of 'em, maybe, but surely a
few.

Here's where I stand on grain.  For me and millions of others, none
whatsoever is the best option.  There's no advantage to eating it, a ton of
DISadvantages and, for many, (i.e. ME) all it takes is one bite and there
goes the day.  I rarely drink, never smoke and have never touched an illegal
drug but grain --even more than sugar-- is NO DOUBT addictive to me and many
others.  So I don't even go there, girlfriend.

Oh, and when an early human ate a handful of soaked wheat berries, there was
no cookie or bread aisle to suddenly appeal to them.  I've had one mere
taste of bread or some other grain "delight" make me do embarassing things
in aforementioned aisles more times than I care to admit.

Dori Zook
Denver, CO

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com