Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:16:29 -0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Wally,
I can't speak for the many or most. I can say that I hold Cordain in
very high regard. He pioneered objective research into grains as a
highly utilized and recommended macro-nutrient. Until then, history had
most of us assuming (and preaching) that gluten grains are healthful for
everyone but those rare few with celiac disease. The more recent
discoveries that celiac disease is common, non-celiac gluten sensitivity
is at least 10 times as common and perhaps just as serious, the
connections between gluten and autoimmunity, etc. all followed or were
contemporary with his work in that area.
It was his "new" perspective on cereal grains that opened many more
conventional researchers to the possibility that grains are not a very
healthful food for anyone. I'd say that single achievement is worthy of
considerable respect.
In the absence of further evidence, however, I'm not prepared to buy
Cordain's position on saturated fats, his position on healthful
proportions of fats in the diet, or the notion that fats consumption,
digestion, or metabolism cause increased acidity that compromises bone
integrity.
Best Wishes,
Ron
> It seems the corollary is also true. Many (most?) on this list seem to dismiss Cordain's assertions without question.
>
--
PK
|
|
|