Hi Geoff. I generally agree. But I think that there are degrees of bad!
Early wheat had a lot less gluten than modern wheat, for example, so the
immediate effects would not be as noticeable, especially since they probably
only gradually adopted a grain-based diet.

If you read the old stories, many of them note that their ancestors were
much bigger than they were. I suppose if a nomadic people settled down and
became grain eating farmers the difference would be noted in a generation or
two, the old folks being much bigger and more robust than the grandkids.
They would make up stories to explain it, how their ancestors were gods or
heroes, and that their own times were degenerate. Read 'The Illiad' for an
example.

As for the collapse in health in the neolithic, some groups would hit on
ways of improving the diet and would prosper. The end result after a few
thousand years would be Weston Price noting that this or that diet had
distinct advantages over our modern, untested diet. Eventually I hope that
we will learn to avoid the worst and emphasize the best and slowly improve
the base diet.

So health did collapse in the neolithic with early unbalanced grain-based
diets. But over time the diets were modified to make them less damaging.

I still think that the paleo diet is the best, simply avoiding the problem
entirely, but for the masses of poor people in the world, some intermediate
step is needed, and Weston Price  is a useful starting point.

On 5/12/07, Geoffrey Purcell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Well, I hardly think that there could have been worse alternatives to
> fermented grain or raw dairy during  the Neolithic period - after all they
> didn't
> have trans-fats or additives  in those days , and they knew enough to
> ferment their grains and dairy  before consuming  them. But the collapse
> in
> health in the Neolithic seems to have been all-pervasive for those in
> settled,
> agricultural communities,