Re mention of grains-consumption 105,00 years ago:- This is wonderful news. 1 of the most common pseudo-arguments used against palaeo-thinking is that we've been around for 10,000 years so we must have largely adapted to grains/dairy by now. Now we all know that this is a bogus conclusion as so many humans have (hidden or overt) grain-/dairy related disorders/symptoms(eg:- coeliac disease etc.) -plus, when animals fully adaped  to completely different diets(such as our hominid ancestors, they took millions of years to do so). Now  we know that grains were consumed as far back as 105,000 years ago, so that argument re human adaptation to grains/dairy  is dead-in-the-water.

Also, a similiar nonsensical argument has been made by pro-cooked-food advocates in the past, namely, that we've been eating cooked foods for 250,000 years, so that we must be fully adapted to cooking by now. The very fact that we haven't adapted to grains-consumption even after a full  105,000(!) years of eating such, is a pretty obvious indication that that argument re adaptation to cooked foods is similiarly bogus.

Someone on another list pointed out how ridiculous these claims are re length of time supposedly  "proving" that a diet is healthy for a particular species. He pointed out that giant pandas , despite technically being carnivores, have eaten a diet consisting almost wholly of bamboo for 2 million years

(and that's not counting their bamboo-eating carnivore ancestors)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070618174710.htm

, despite their very poor adaptation to such a diet.



Geoff







http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sciencenow;2009/1217/2