Scientific American: Humans feasting on grains for at least 100,000 years

[Löwenherz]

"Grains might have been an important part of human diets much further back in our history than previous research has suggested."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2009/12/17/humans-feasting-on-grains-for-at-least-100000-years/

Löwenherz

[TylerDurden]

This has already been long debunked by Cordain who pointed out that grain-consumption was tiny in the palaeolithic era, even based on the new evidence.

[Löwenherz]

This has already been long debunked by Cordain who pointed out that grain-consumption was tiny in the palaeolithic era, even based on the new evidence.

That's good. Could you please provide us a with a link to the corresponding article from Cordain?

Judging from my own adverse reactions I'm pretty sure that MY ancestors never adapted to eating grains. 

Löwenherz

[goodsamaritan]

I just tried rice again on my recovering son and after 3 days it was my son who gave up on rice.  Maybe he's just not adapted to rice as well.

[Projectile Vomit]

Also realize that the grain (seeds of grasses and herbs) people were eating 100,000 years ago was, genetically and phenotypically, very different than the heavily hybridized, genetically modified, nutrient-poor, pesticide-laced grain people eat today.

I have no doubt that 100,000 years ago people were eating grain. What I'm skeptical of is the idea they were using it as a staple, and that it made up a meaningful proportion of their diet. The idea that grain consumption began with agriculture is silly, no dietary change that substantive could happen so suddenly. The relationships with cultivated plants that would allow seeds to become a substantial part of a people's diet certainly took tens of thousands of years to develop.

I suspect that the reason so many people are intolerant of grains today - and ironically why "Paleo Diet" aficionados claim we should avoid them - is because we've overconsumed them without preparing them properly (soaking and fermenting them) for many generations and have overloaded our bodies with their antinutrients and damaged our epigenetic phenotypes.

[Chris]

"Grains might have been an important part of human diets much further back in our history than previous research has suggested."

I wouldn't care if  people were eating"Grains" for over a billion years! It wouldn't change my perception at all! Just because you eat something doesn't mean you absorb it nutrients, or that it's good for you!

[joej627]

Agreed.  You show a small child some cereal grasses in one corner and in another you have fresh, colorful fruits, veggies, meat and eggs in another and they will know what to do.

[CarnivorousApe]

Well, if some overzealous vegan threw this article in my face, I would say:

1. Where grains used for food or they just fell off the grass used for example as fire fodder or bedding?
2. If they were eaten, how much and how often? (not feasting I assume, looks more like starvation diet)
3. Modern wheat is much worse
4. How healthy were tribes who ate grains comparing to ones that didn't?
5. I bet that even the most devoted consumers of grain preferred meat or at least ate some part of diet as meat and animal fats.

[cherimoya_kid]

There are plenty of remote tribes even TODAY who have never eaten grains.  I'm sure the Inuit, Pygmies, and Yanomamo have an unbroken history of being grain-free going as far back as those groups go.

Who would seriously expect these kinds of people to be adapted to grains, even if they have a few ancestors 2000 generations back that ate grains a few times?

[Projectile Vomit]

As someone whose gone on survival trips, grain (seeds from grasses and other herbs) is actually a common food. But, like folks alluded to above, it's not a staple. It's something you eat when you have nothing else available and need to fill your belly (and have access to fire and a means to cook the grain). I doubt that the lineages you mention are actually grain-free. They might eat very little grain and in good years none at all, but I'm sure grain plays a role in their food ecologies.

[TylerDurden]

That's good. Could you please provide us a with a link to the corresponding article from Cordain?

Judging from my own adverse reactions I'm pretty sure that MY ancestors never adapted to eating grains. 

Löwenherz

  http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.co.at/2009/12/dr-cordain-comments-on-new-evidence-of.html

[Chris]

Eating grains, dairy, ect is cultural. Just like eating the SAD diet. If you grow up eating SAD, you don't question it's merit until down the road when you start having health issues. Look at all of us? I bet most, if not all of us didn't come from a background of healthy nourishing foods growing up. The American food pyramid is a Joke! No wonder obesity rates are so high, cancer rates are increasing, diabetes is growing at an alarming rate. 

[cherimoya_kid]

As someone whose gone on survival trips, grain (seeds from grasses and other herbs) is actually a common food. But, like folks alluded to above, it's not a staple. It's something you eat when you have nothing else available and need to fill your belly (and have access to fire and a means to cook the grain). I doubt that the lineages you mention are actually grain-free. They might eat very little grain and in good years none at all, but I'm sure grain plays a role in their food ecologies.

Eskimos, in coastal Alaska?  I seriously doubt it.

Pygmies and the Yanomamo live in the rain forest, where grasses don't grow.  Maybe they eat nuts and seeds, but that's not grains from grasses.