Hackmatack wrote:
> ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>> it seems that there are more
>> and more people who are finding out that when they eliminate wheat and
>> most other grains from their diets, their health improves greatly.
>
> It's hard to argue with success if a grain-free diet is working for you.

Not to some people. There is a constant stream of denial that eating
grain can possibly be damaging to anyone. There is a constant stream of
assertion that going grain freee is a fad choice that has zero benefit
to anyone. Mnay do argue with success. Note the people in this thread
who react to statements with "False" when the statements made are
irritating and to many-but-not all irrelevant but not incorrect.

Switching from ranching herds of grass eaters to farming grain that
started civilization aroun 10-15K years ago saw to it that grain was and
is an economic necessity. Do not confuse an economic necessity with a
biological necessity. Feeding grain to chickens to fatten them for
slaughter was not benefical to the chickens but it was suce benefical to
the humans who went from eating chicken eggs to eating both the eggs and
the meat. Do not confuse an economic necessity with use of that
product being beneficial to all. Diabetes remains common in most human
populations and those societies with the highest grain use also had the
highest obesity rates.

> But is he really saying that Our Daily Bread has been an evolutionary
> mistake?

Social or cultural mistake? Not at all. Dietary mistake? Certainly.
Evolutionary mistake? Clearly not. Eating bread allowed humans to
cover the planet. It also made a lot of us a lot less healthy. That
ill health has been putting evolutionary pressure on our gene pool ever
since. The net effect of increased population beats the net effect of
worse health. Evolution works by population numbers without respect to
effects on any one individual. Evolution is impersonal and it does not
care if someone is sick or infertile or is fat.

The issue is there has not yet been time for that evolutionary pressure
on our gene pool to be enough. Tribes that used to eat mostly local
roots and hunted meat get up to 90% diabetes rates when they start
eating grain based diets. That's a lot of infertility. It's also
demonstration that there has been insufficient time on an evolutionary
scale.

We are now in a genetic situation where the number of people in the
large genetic segments of humanity have enough grain eating ancestry
that only one percent of us have celiac and probably under five percent
of us have reactions more serious than obesity from using grain as a
dietary base.

If our society were to treat grain foods as just another vegitable
option and thus under 5% of our calories there would be a lot less
celiac and intolerance symptoms. There are dietary recommendations to
try to have one serving of a cruciferous vegitable daily. If the
dietary recommendation on grain were similar that would reduce both the
incidence of symptoms in those who are intolerant as well as reduce the
amount of obesity in society. But grain is sold by the hundred pound
sack while cabbage is sold by the head.

Do I as a human who understands evolution want future generations to
continue to eat grain and evolve to handle it better? Yes.

Do I as an individual human who does have symptoms from certain grains
want to keep my exposure to grains in general lower than the general
population? Yes. And I want to educate people that many see improved
health when they greatly reduce their personal grain intake.

Are these two views in opposition? Yes. That's the way it goes with
issues revolving around evolution.

One 3-4 ounce serving of grain per day? Plenty. But grain is an
economic necessity for the many poor people in the world. Better they
eat too much grain as a source of their calories than they starve. For
the rich among us, better we eat more carrots and brocolli.