On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:14:47 -0700, Dori Zook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>... Grains, or the seeds of grasses are
>now a staple of the human diet.  Grasses are not, nor were they.  Why this
>diatribe on grains when we're talking about grasses?  GRASSES.  Not grains.

A cereal grain is the seed of a grass. It has grass-type proteins.
To eat grains is to eat grass - a certain part of it.
If you eat your steaks you eat cow, part of it, isn't it?
If you eat apples you don't eat the whole tree.

The quotes I repeated may show you, that in certain regions wild grasses
(seeds of course) were used by gatherhunting people. For some also as a
staple. I gave you the reason why they are such a plentiful available
resource.

Grains of today are the descendants of wild grasses of the eons.
Up to say 50 years ago they were closely related and had a similar
composition. Since then the transformation rate especially for wheat has
been enormous so I doubt the usability of modern "wheat". Like I doubt the
usability of modern "cattle", they were likewise modified heavily.

All paleo use of grass seeds has in all milleniums been always the whole
seed and included the vitamin and protein part.
Today cereal protein is no more a staple (in the west). Cereal protein is
transformed into cattle and milk protein before use. Grains are a staple
only with the starch part now. To fill the calorie *deficit*, but alas
as unusable energy, apart from beeing transformed into fat.

If the author of this new paleo-book argues that eating whole grains is a
proper paleo way to eat, is is well reasoned with the fact that paleo
gatherhunting tribes did eat wild grasses. Seeds.
Seeminly some as a staple too. A habit that really proliferated.

>Sheesh!

Wooof?

Amadeus