Todd> As far as I can see, no one has argued that eating grains is
necessary to maintain health.  I also don't think anyone claims that the
only permissible foods are those that are necessary to maintain health.

First of all, I don't like the term "permissible."  Maybe I'm being overly
concerned with semantics, but to me it places the onus of personal dietary
decisions outside rather than inside.  You decide what's best for you and
go for it.  Second, it seems perfectly logical to me that if it ain't
necessary, and it might just kill you, you should avoid the stuff
altogether.  Now I'm assuming you're not arguing that grains are good for
humans in any quantity.  Or that they won't kill you in large quantities.
So they're either neutral or bad in smaller quantities, depending upon the
individual perhaps.  But it seems to me the better decision to follow Ray's
lead and avoid them altogether.


Todd> What we're doing is challenging certain construals of basic paleo
principles.  Why shouldn't we do that?

What this is really about is that you want to have an occassional serving
of grain and claim you see no ill effects from eating the stuff.  Well, eat
some grain.  But personally I cannot escape the thought that the same brand
of thinking that leads one to believe that it's acceptable from a paleo
standpoint might lead one to the conclusion that the Burpacola Indians of
South Wangatang were healthily and regularly popping M&Ms 15,000 years ago.
It's quite a balm for the conscience to find real or imagined ancient
models which allow one to do what they want to do. Rationalization, I think
it's called.  Sorry if I'm wrong about that in your particular situation or
if I'm being unfair.


Todd> The question you should be asking is why people suddenly began to
consume, in increasing quantities, foods that according to you make them
sick in any quantity.

Actually, the dose response opinion is yours, if I recall correctly.  I'm
just not sure about the quantity issue.  The reason people began to consume
grains is that we are by nature lazy and risk-averse.  I'm not entirely
sure we knew the price that would need to be paid because of the switch.
Maybe we did and willingly traded the healthy uncertainty of Paradise for
the sick security of the agricultural life.