Re: Grains Good as Gold

[Guest guest]

Some books

Last Hunters, Fisrt Farmers - New Perspectives on The Prehistoric Transition

to Agriculture-

Price and Gebauer

The Emergence of Agriculture - Bruce D.

Those are two books, I'll list more later.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

This a field which is constantly changing , being revised and updated with

new information but my understanding is that in the past 2 years it's been found

that neander man is not related to homo sapiens .

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Also according to new evidence there were large settlements of paleolithic

people in the Lavant region harvesting wild strains of emmer wheat, eikorn and

barley. According to ethnobotanists, archeologists, anthropologists,

archeobotanists etc.. etc.. know that this is not a static field of study.

Nothing is

set and the information we have is minimal. There's a lot more to learn.

It's very easy to rationalize any diet using modern scientific findings from

the past 20 years, while many of these findings have been revised and updated

and still nothing is definitive.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2004 3:02:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,

deweyli@... writes:

> > Moreover, humans were likely eating grains *long* before >>they began

domesticating grains, to some extent.

> Yes! Which provides another point to argue that grains are

> even unhealthier for us than they were for them.

It does? How so?

Chris

[Guest guest]

my understanding of the real story is somewhat different, but can be

glossed over to make it sound like what your husband found.

the way i understand it, " paleo man " evolved to eat animal protein, which

is why we have a much smaller gut than " neander man " - because breaking

down animal products doesn't take that enormous digestive tract that

breaking down grasses does. this is why when you look at the remains of

both sets of man, neander-man has a big barrel torso and paleo-man looks

like us.

that's the short-short-short version, and i'm sure everyone else will jump

in with lots of documentation for you, but there ya go.

-katja

At 11:16 AM 2/3/2004, you wrote:

>My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and the newest

>info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild grasses with

>only

>20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole wrench into

>this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do all the

>reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new evidence.

>

>Elainie

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 2/3/2004 3:02:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,

deweyli@e... writes:

>

> > > Moreover, humans were likely eating grains *long* before

>>they began domesticating grains, to some extent.

>

>

> > Yes! Which provides another point to argue that grains are

> > even unhealthier for us than they were for them.

>

>

> It does? How so?

>

> Chris

Well, I thought that ancient grains are supposed to be better than

recent domesticated grains. If the grains they were eating

were " better " , yet they had deterioration of their health after the

grains were introduced, why would the domesticated grains be better

for us? Am I missing something?

Robin L.

[Guest guest]

> My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and

the newest

> info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild

grasses with only

> 20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole

wrench into

> this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do

all the

> reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new

evidence.

>

> Elainie

Well, I suppose they will be debating forever on what the diet of

man initially was. I guess, regardless of which gene pool you

originate from, each person has to figure out for themselves which

foods don't work well for their body, and which foods they do best

on.

I figure I will start with a basic diet of meats/vegetables/fruits,

and stay away from the foods that seems to give people the most

problems - grains, beans/legumes, and nuts/seeds.

If I improve over time with this diet, then I will slowly start

adding some of the other things back in and see what happens. If I

start feeling fatigued, depressed, gain weight, etc., after adding

something, then I will know to keep that particular food out of my

diet.

When I say adding slowly, I mean adding one particular food at a

time, such as, just almonds instead of nuts in general, for about a

month - to allow for delayed reactions. I'm assuming this would be

the best way to add things back because within one group of food,

say grains for example, a person may have a problem with wheat but

not spelt; it would be hard for them to pinpoint which grain is

causing problems if more than one type is added at the same time.

Robin L.

[Guest guest]

From my understanding it comprised 20% of a diet that was mostly plant foods

(80%) which is similar to modern day hunter gatherer's.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Interesting Wanita. Mind you I'm not saying grains are beneficial but to base

the eating of or non eating of grains on a system that is everchanging seems

strange to me.

Some people do really well eating grain, others don't.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Hi Elainie,

When you say 20% of the diet was meat does that mean 20% of the calories or

20% by some other measure?

Just curious.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: zumicat@... [mailto:zumicat@...]

My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and the newest

info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild grasses with

only

20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole wrench into

this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do all the

reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new evidence.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Robin-

> If the grains they were eating

>were " better " , yet they had deterioration of their health after the

>grains were introduced, why would the domesticated grains be better

>for us? Am I missing something?

No, your logic is impeccable, and it fits the facts as we know them.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/04 12:27:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

deweyli@... writes:

> Well, I thought that ancient grains are supposed to be better than

> recent domesticated grains. If the grains they were eating

> were " better " , yet they had deterioration of their health after the

> grains were introduced, why would the domesticated grains be better

> for us? Am I missing something?

Yes. The marker for the deterioration in health is the domestication of

grains, not the consumption of grains. I don't think anyone has any idea how

long

humans have been eating grains, yet everyone assumes without reason that

grain consumption began with grain domestication.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/04 5:16:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> IIRC, all archaeological sites averaged around the world have a 30% hunted,

> 70% gathered ratio. 20% animal not that much less.

There's no accurate way to distinguish this archeologically. There's too

many kinds of foods that just don't leave archeological traces, so any

estimation

is almost *entirely* speculation.

Based on the study of hunter-gatherers, there is a direct correlation with

latitudinal distance from the equator and percentage animal product consumption.

The !Kung San were found to have 37% of calories from animal products, and

they're pretty close to the equator. The Inuit, of course, have much more

animal products.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/04 6:16:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, zumicat@...

writes:

> From my understanding it comprised 20% of a diet that was mostly plant

> foods

> (80%) which is similar to modern day hunter gatherer's.

Like the Inuit? That doesn't correspond to modern day hunter gatherers at

all.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/04 6:28:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Also, the glycemic index of the grains has increased exponentially.

> Not only are they ground finer now, but the grains have

> more quick carbs and we eat them in crackers and bread,

> which digest immediately.

I've raised this issue a billion times and don't recall anyone ever

responding to it:

Everything we advocate increases the simple sugars in grains. Sprouting

clearly makes grains nutritionally superior in many senses, yet converts most of

the starch to simple sugars. Just taste Manna bread-- it tastes like cake, yet

the only ingrediets, literally, are sprouted rye kernels and water.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Elainie,

One book I've seen on North America with grass, seed reference is Foraging

and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands. Got it mainly for New England which is

omitted along with the entire east coast. Covers Ohio valley south with one

Florida site, 2300 B.C. to A.D. 300. Seed and grass caches were found along

with evidence in remains of high seed, grass consumption. IIRC, from

archaeological evidence elsewhere that there were some remains from Cahokia

where the person was considered to have died from severe tooth infection.

This makes sense to me with Cahokia being politically and hierarchally,

structured much like a kingdom with royalty. There was a large worker class

of people to build the mounds, live furthest away from the highest class,

raise food for the higher classes and likely eat at a much lower level than

the other classes. Another one of the many extravagant civilizations to put

itself into history's extinct category.

Wanita

> My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and the newest

> info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild grasses with

only

> 20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole wrench

into

> this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do all the

> reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new evidence.

>

> Elainie

[Guest guest]

Elainie & Katja,

Pretty sure Neanderthal is considered extinct. Whoever moved into their area

had better tools, better hunting abilities. Rather than adapt to other food,

tools or move on they starved to death. Asian people with higher grain,

carbohydrate diets have longer intestines than more carniverous peoples.

Wanita

> This a field which is constantly changing , being revised and updated with

> new information but my understanding is that in the past 2 years it's been

found

> that neander man is not related to homo sapiens .

>

> Elainie

[Guest guest]

right - i think i made it sound like paleos evolved from neanders, which is

not what i meant. i was just illustrating the difference. the source i got

it from opined that one reason the neanders died out was that they didn't

adapt to a more meat-heavy diet...

At 04:28 PM 2/3/2004, you wrote:

>Elainie & Katja,

>

>Pretty sure Neanderthal is considered extinct. Whoever moved into their area

>had better tools, better hunting abilities. Rather than adapt to other food,

>tools or move on they starved to death. Asian people with higher grain,

>carbohydrate diets have longer intestines than more carniverous peoples.

>

>Wanita

>

> > This a field which is constantly changing , being revised and updated with

> > new information but my understanding is that in the past 2 years it's been

>found

> > that neander man is not related to homo sapiens .

> >

> > Elainie

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

IIRC, all archaeological sites averaged around the world have a 30% hunted,

70% gathered ratio. 20% animal not that much less.

Wanita

>

> > My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and

> the newest

> > info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild

> grasses with only

> > 20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole

> wrench into

> > this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do

> all the

> > reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new

> evidence.

> >

> > Elainie

[Guest guest]

I live in the Neandertal. !!

There was a geneticist from Oxford U. who came here...I don't know when

perhaps two years ago and confirmed with genetic typing that the

Neandertalen had died out. It is all reviewed in " Seven Sisters of Eve. " a

book published by this geneticist.

Re: Re: " Grains Good as Gold "

> right - i think i made it sound like paleos evolved from neanders, which

is

> not what i meant. i was just illustrating the difference. the source i got

> it from opined that one reason the neanders died out was that they didn't

> adapt to a more meat-heavy diet...

>

> At 04:28 PM 2/3/2004, you wrote:

> >Elainie & Katja,

> >

> >Pretty sure Neanderthal is considered extinct. Whoever moved into their

area

> >had better tools, better hunting abilities. Rather than adapt to other

food,

> >tools or move on they starved to death. Asian people with higher grain,

> >carbohydrate diets have longer intestines than more carniverous peoples.

> >

> >Wanita

> >

> > > This a field which is constantly changing , being revised and updated

with

> > > new information but my understanding is that in the past 2 years it's

been

> >found

> > > that neander man is not related to homo sapiens .

> > >

> > > Elainie

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and the newest

>info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild grasses with only

>20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole wrench into

>this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do all the

>reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new evidence.

>

>Elainie

It's true they ate a lot of plants, but the mass harvesting

of grains is REALLY recent for most of us. As recently as 100

years ago, folk in Northern Europe got very little wheat (it

was too pricey). There are lots of other grains easier to

harvest, and only the wheat family has devastating effects

on health ... and then usually only after 20 years of eating

it (and Paleo folks didn't live very long on average). Also

it has to do with how the grain is processed ... boiled

whole grains or semi-ground grains are lots better for

you than finely milled flour. Fermented grains are better

than otherwise. And the gluten content of wheat has

increased something like 10-fold in modern times. Most

of the BIG fatal grain issues are from gluten, not from the

starch.

Also, the glycemic index of the grains has increased exponentially.

Not only are they ground finer now, but the grains have

more quick carbs and we eat them in crackers and bread,

which digest immediately.

Also in most tribal cultures, there is MUCH more variety

of foods they eat. They might eat grains ... and also

a bunch of different tubers, insects, leaves, fruits, nuts.

It is a situation, I think, similar to that of ruminants. All

ruminants will eat grains when they can get them ...

but there aren't very many in the wild, and they are

very seasonal, and eating grain-heads in a field didn't

kill the cows. But eating a diet of cracked corn can and will

kill a ruminant (without additional antibiotics) because,

at the root if it, they aren't designed for an all grain

diet.

Anyway, people can eat a diet high in grains if they

are the right grains and processed correctly.

Most of Asia does this. But some grains are just

worse than others. In the case of wheat, there is a direct

and known genetic connection ... if you have HLA-DQ8 or

HLA-DQ2, you will likely have problems with wheat. Those

genes are very rare in long-term wheat eating countries,

so I can say with pretty fair assurance that MY ancestors

did not eat much wheat.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>my understanding of the real story is somewhat different, but can be

>glossed over to make it sound like what your husband found.

>the way i understand it, " paleo man " evolved to eat animal protein, which

>is why we have a much smaller gut than " neander man " - because breaking

>down animal products doesn't take that enormous digestive tract that

>breaking down grasses does. this is why when you look at the remains of

>both sets of man, neander-man has a big barrel torso and paleo-man looks

>like us.

human gut lenght varies considerably, so i'm not sure *who* specifically was

studied to determine that modern humans " look like " paleo folk. it's also

possible that gut width changes in any given human in response to diet, at

least this has been found in dogs - you can actually increase the width of

the colon by feeding certain foods. (i don't know if that goes for length as

well.)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

> Yes. The marker for the deterioration in health is the

domestication of

> grains, not the consumption of grains. I don't think anyone has

any idea how long

> humans have been eating grains, yet everyone assumes without

reason that

> grain consumption began with grain domestication.

>

> Chris

So, are you saying that the grains they ate were most likely

domesticated grains?

Robin L.

[Guest guest]

> and only the wheat family has devastating effects

> on health ... and then usually only after 20 years of eating

> it (and Paleo folks didn't live very long on average).

Are buckwheat and rye the only grains in the wheat family? Where

did you get your information that only the wheat family grains have

devastating effects on health? That's an interesting bit of

information if indeed it is true.

Robin L.

[Guest guest]

> Are buckwheat and rye the only grains in the wheat family?

Buckwheat's not even a grain...

Lynn S.