fwap!

Classic, were you just trying to motorboat Jinx?

HA! not at all - "fwap!"was the sound of her point hittin RichL squarely between the eyes.

While I don't disagree with the argument from a evolutionary standpoint, it seems the article is assuming we were healthier prior to the agricultural revolution due to our lack of consumption of wheat, which I do not believe is true. I don't have any authority in this field but what of the possibility that wheat is a double edged sword which provides many nutritional benefits to live longer lives but also is a poison that will kill us in the end.

An example of this would be the chemicals we put in our drinking water. There are studies that show that the chemicals we put in our drinking water cause cancer. My Water Treatment professor fully admitted this as well. But, the reason we still use these chemicals is because they effectively kill other waterborne diseases along with us. So, more or less, it comes down to the choice whether you want to die at age 40 from a waterborne disease or 80 from the chemicals that kill that waterborne disease.

I wonder if wheat works in a similar fashion. It helped allowed us to double or even triple our life expectancy but will help kill us in the end. I am also making the assumption that grain, especially wheat, helped extend our life expectancies, which may not be fully true, but its tough to ignore the health benefits of wheat.

http://www.organicfacts.net/nutritio...nd-barley.html
http://nutrition.suite101.com/articl..._of_wheat_germ

Like for me, the explosive diarrhea keeps the weight off. Just kidding, the escalating cycle of carbohydrate consumption would help keep the blubber on even with streaming liquid shit.

You actually make a good point for those people who can tolerate it.

Agreed. Except that you need water to live whereas wheat is just convenient, at this particular period in history....

C'mon, life without donuts? That's crazy talk. :donut::crazy:

Can foods contribute to infertility?

Also, women with celiac disease are three times more likely to have an autistic child.

In terms of nutrition per acre, wheat or any grain takes up a lot of space. It takes about 8 square feet of land to grow enough wheat to make about two slices of ordinary store bought bread.

That much land could grow a lot more food in the form of beets, or broccoli, or almost any other vegetable. They don't store as well as wheat or other grains, but are better for you to eat.

Also if you read the work of forensic anthropologists they often point out the many degenerative diseases that beset agricultural man. Hunter Gatherers had no such degenerative diseases.

There is a lot of info on the nutrition related diseases of the ancient Egyptians who practiced agriculture.

Wheat isn't the boogeyman under the bed for everyone, but it is for a lot of people. There is also the quality of life question, when it comes to living longer. There's a big difference between living and surviving.

Peanut butter & jelly on beets? On broccoli? No way. :headshake

"Ah! You have made a common mistake here...what you have there is a beet and you have confused it with food. Food is something like a ham sandwich or a bowl of chile."
- Paul Hinrichs

cookied

Its hard avopiding thie garbage now though.... Everything has ENRICHED WHEAT FLOUR (It used to be ENRICHED FLOUR (Which wasnt WHEAT flour))



Nope we have to be alert and aware of things today....Alot of stuff they put in food ON PURPOSE I think to try and hurt people so they require big pharma!!! ($$$$$$$$ for them)