Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Grains, especially wheat have been around for long enough the
>> human species has (in my opinion) co-evolved with them.

>According to my anthropology course 25ish years ago hunter gatherers
>tend to have a few meals of cereal foods per year. Far too little to
>evolve tolerance. Enough to weed out fatal allergic reactions.

Read above. I'm saying adaptation to grain has evolved into
the species since grains started being cultivated.

You can look into it, but geneticists have identified specific
gene sequences associated with agriculture and settling into
sedentary life in cities.

>> If there's
>> a single foodstuff that is at the dead-center of human nutrition
>> it is wheat, or more generally the grain-forming grasses.

>It would be meat from grass eating animals. What domesticated species
>were not grass eaters are mostly now fed grains by us. It's even put in
>dog and cat food.


>> There's no reason in the world to be surprised that persons of
>> longevity have eaten wheat.
>
>True. Equally true is there is no reason to expect that grain is
>beneficial as a staple food. It is for some, not for others. And
>the lower glycemic load of whole grains works better than the higher
>glycemic load of refined grains. This principle continues through
>cauliflower being more beneficial than any grain. Sure enough
>cauliflower is a food on all lists of paleolithic and low carb plans.
>It's not that grains are automatically bad it's that there are other
>foods that are automatically better.

Wrong. Wheat is a great food. It has calories (the number
one most important thing one needs in a food), and its ratio
of protein to total calories is exactly in line with dietary
protein requirements. The protein is not complete, but that
is readily corrected by adding a small amount of variety to
one's diet. It also has some fat (whole wheat).

Steve