On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Don Wiss wrote:

> 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.

On the contrary, 17,000 years ago is within the Upper Paleolithic
time period.  And there is no need to suppose that the evidence
of first widespread gathering of grains represents their first
entry into the human food supply.

> 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.

It's not about justifying them.  It's about understanding.  Do we
know, for example, how many of the health problems allegedly
caused by grains are actually caused by immune systems unable to
handle grains because they have been compromised by something
else, such as inappropriate infant feeding, vaccination, viruses,
etc.?  I think we don't.  There are two facts that need to be
faced squarely.  One fact is that there are many people who get
sick if they eat grains.  The other is that there are many people
who don't get sick if they eat grains.  It's a mistake to pretend
that only one of those facts exists.

Personally, I don't eat grain products.  I've gotten used to it
by now, and I don't think about it much.  If, however, I am a
guest at someone's house and I consume some breadcrumbs or a
crouton or something, I am none the worse for it.  I could eat
some pasta and feel just fine.  But if I were eating a
significant amount of pasta every day, I'd have problems -- but
they would be the same problems I'd have if I ate a pound of
grapes every day.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]