let me first say that i don't eat grains aside from cheat days. what i would like to know is why grains aren't considered paleo when there's evidence our ancestors ate them.
asked byJonas_1 (835)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on February 01, 2013
at 12:53 AM
How much grain did our paleo ancestors eat? Not much at all. How much do hunter-gathers eat? Not much at all. Our neolithic ancestors ate plenty, of course.
Practitioners who actually attempt to remove grains from clients' diets find it to be hugely useful. There are few practitioners who try to, so the majority have not heard of this useful intervention. But when practitioners, including MDs like Dr Davis ("Wheat Belly"), do so, they have stunning success.
Paleo is about looking at current science in the light of evolution. Current science says grains are bad. Many scientists and nutritionists are using old science because, as Neils Bohr said, "Science proceeds one funeral at a time." If it's that way in a hard science like physics, just imagine how hard it is to change the minds of scientists who base their information on epidemiological data. Sadly, almost no nutritional science is based on controlled experiments, and for good reason. E.g. nobody 80 years ago had the foresight, bankroll, and coercive power to randomly assign 1000 babies into wheat-eating and non-wheat-eating groups and see which died at which rates. So nutrition is a soft science, and as a result anybody can believe what they want to believe by cherrypicking the data. Paleo folks would like to believe they are more objective about the science than others. Given that I've been around long enough to see Loren Cordain, Robb Wolf, and others changing their minds about various issues as more information comes in, I'm impressed. Given how I've seen nutritional authorities reacting (not at all) to well-done studies that contradict their tenets, I know who to trust and who not to trust.
Controlled studies of wheat-exclusion will not be done until those who control the purse-strings believe that wheat-exclusion is a worthwhile topic for study. And they will not believe wheat-exclusion is a worthwhile topic for study until the evidence is overwhelming, and even then the older, who control the purse-strings, still have to die.
Wheat will be suspect in 15 years, and bad in 30, and it will penetrate popular consciousness in 40. That's my timeline.
on January 31, 2013
at 10:25 PM
"Search" young Padawan... and you will find your answer...