I agree.  The grain/legume diet is high purine and high carb. That's far too
much sugar and not compatible with meat.  I would imagine one would be at
risk for gout and diabetes.  I can see the sugar and fat binding together
and clogging the arteries.  BLECH!       Oliva

-----Original Message-----
From: Wally Day <[log in to unmask]>


>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?