I have a new conjecture.

One of the most puzzling things about this whole Paleo
vs. "other" debate is that some of the "others" seems
to do extremely well on a minimal meat or meat-free
diet.

Is it possible - and remember, this is PURE conjection
- that grain/legume meals ARE a good replacement for
meat? And at the same time are contradictory with
meat?

Let me elaborate. The cases which I am thinking about
are situations where meat is scarce. So, in order to
survive, the folks had to come up with a replacement
for meat. Which they seem to do alright or even thrive
on.

Jump to modern day. Add meat to their diets (without
removing the grain/legume combos) and suddenly heart
disease, cancer, etc.

Reverse the same. Innuit for example. Meat, meat,
meat, and more meat and doing ok, even thriving. Add
grains and legumes to their diet and heart disease,
cancer, etc.

Could there be some kind of "natural dietary law" or
some biochemical condition that precludes mixing meat
and grain/legume diets from working together? Some
chemical (or protein) interaction with possible nasty
side effects? Could the body be able to process the
foods alone? (I'm not really referring to "food
combining" and digestion here but maybe more of a
homeostasis issue). Could grain/legume be and
"anti-meat" and vice-versa?

If this could even be slightly true it might explain a
lot.

Any thoughts?

(P.S. - I am familiar with ER4YT theories, but I don't
buy them. I can't see how certain *very* similar foods
could have opposite ratings for one individual blood
type. In that framework, Dr. Abravanel's glandular
body types make more sense).
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com