PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Actually, I think there are more than enough humans for us all to hunt.

*cue the Silence of the Lambs*

;)

Seriously - while I am always oppositional, I do appreciate the thinking and background you've laid out.

Also see "The most dangerous game"

Don't find you oppositional at all. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

A couple of publications you might like, if investigating primitive hunting techniques and lore are Traditional Bowhunter and Primitive Archer - both fascinating magazines.

RM

[c1ue]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

There are too many humans for us all to hunt.

Actually, I think there are more than enough humans for us all to hunt.

*cue the Silence of the Lambs*

;)

Seriously - while I am always oppositional, I do appreciate the thinking and background you've laid out.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

The Paleolithic era extends from 1.5M t 2M years ago up until 10,000 years ago.

Agreed.

However, the inventions you refer to: bows, atlatls, etc are from the upper Paleolithic which is only roughly 40,000 years ago.

No argument about the placement of these tools. But meat eating in all forms and butchery of large mammals long predates the upper paleolithic. Our history of meat-eating antedates complex-tool hunting by over a million years if you count H. Habilis ancestors, who used stone tools to extract marrow and de-flesh bones of large mammals. Our adaptation to meat-eating (we were always omnivores) began long before the apearance of these late paleolithic tools.

40,000 years isn't a lot of time to evolve. And hunting large animals with stone-headed spears isn't a 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Long Lifespan' type of activity.

Agreed about the shortness of 40 ky. Hence the concern that we are incompletely adapted to cereal grains, in use for a much shorter period than this.

From what I understand - the first instances of tool use start at the beginning of the Paleolithic era but have no evidence whatsover of being used for hunting.

Not necessary to have hunting as single combat between armed hominid and beast to have butchery and meat-eating. Scavenging and low-tech hunting techniques were possible. North american buffalo jumps date back as much as 10,000 years. This does not prove it was done before that time, but does show one can hunt without bows or spears.

http://raysweb.net/dryisland/pages/headsmashedin.html

As a non-hunter who has made an effort to learn, I can tell you that having a cutting instrument like a good bowie-style or puuko-style knife and/or a hand axe is immensely useful in the rough.

It could be possible to hunt deer with such an implement or a fire hardened wooden spear derived from such, but it could equally be possible to starve to death in short order.

I am curious if you have ever handled a freshly knapped flint point. They are dangerously sharp and in no way (except durability) inferior to a steel 2-blade broadhead. When I hunt, I am required to use a broadhead at least 7/8" in width. A 1/2" width flint point will actually penetrate and kill better than this "modern" point required by the DNR. It may be easy, as moderns, to over-imagine the difficulty of hunting wild animals for earlier humans, based on an exagerated conception of the superiority of modern hunting implements. We may also underestimate how motivated they might be to avoid starvation by doing so. If it were more productive than gathering what is in shorter supply, they would do it.

It is far more useful to have modern monofilament wire: fishing, rabbit traps, etc.

Well, I would personally take a Ruger 10/22 .22 rifle and 2000 rounds of ammo as part of my survival kit, but monofilament line would be handy for sure.

Sure it is possible that Mankind evolved as largely carnivorous hunting tool using primates, but it is equally possible that Man evolved as opportunistic omnivorous scavengers which evolved tool use and then moved into hunting as a profitable sideline, but was not able to become fully self supporting via hunting until very recently.

I pretty much agree with your description. Opportunistic omnivorous scavenger is accurate - I would use the term omnivorous forager recognizing that foraging includes both hunting and gathering. I am mostly concerned with lack of adaptation to gluten grains. Our adaptation to meat eating is simply not in any serious doubt and whether it was hunted or scavenged doesn't matter to me.

Even the horse mounted, bow and arrow using, buffalo eating Indians weren't self supported on meat. Without refrigeration it is tough to build up a stable supply. And having big chunks of meat is what attracts the true evolved carnivores: lions, bears, tigers, oh my.

The plains indians killed and ate buffalo before bows or horses as I have noted. Also buffalo jerky and pemmican have a much better shelf life than the foraged plants that they also ate in season.

I am not really relying on hunting technology for my arguments. Early hominids show clear evidence of butchery enabled by first scavenging, then by cruder methods which later progressed to the use of complex tools for hunting.

Many paleoanthropologists agree than humans sometimes scavenged kills from other predators. If so, I am not sure why defending your own kill would be any more dangerous than that or of enough concern to outweigh the obvious advantage of killing ones own food if possible.

Just to be clear, I am a just a hunter, not a hunting advocate. There are too many humans for us all to hunt. I am glad most people don't hunt the way downhill skiers are glad everyone else doesn't ski.

Thanks for your thoughtful remarks

RM

[c1ue]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger,

You are doing good work exploring the subject, but I caution you to be clear on your definitions.

The Paleolithic era extends from 1.5M t 2M years ago up until 10,000 years ago.

However, the inventions you refer to: bows, atlatls, etc are from the upper Paleolithic which is only roughly 40,000 years ago.

40,000 years isn't a lot of time to evolve. And hunting large animals with stone-headed spears isn't a 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Long Lifespan' type of activity.

From what I understand - the first instances of tool use start at the beginning of the Paleolithic era but have no evidence whatsover of being used for hunting.

As a non-hunter who has made an effort to learn, I can tell you that having a cutting instrument like a good bowie-style or puuko-style knife and/or a hand axe is immensely useful in the rough.

It could be possible to hunt deer with such an implement or a fire hardened wooden spear derived from such, but it could equally be possible to starve to death in short order.

It is far more useful to have modern monofilament wire: fishing, rabbit traps, etc.

Sure it is possible that Mankind evolved as largely carnivorous hunting tool using primates, but it is equally possible that Man evolved as opportunistic omnivorous scavengers which evolved tool use and then moved into hunting as a profitable sideline, but was not able to become fully self supporting via hunting until very recently.

Even the horse mounted, bow and arrow using, buffalo eating Indians weren't self supported on meat. Without refrigeration it is tough to build up a stable supply. And having big chunks of meat is what attracts the true evolved carnivores: lions, bears, tigers, oh my.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

There is a good introduction to the work of Weston Price on Dr. Mercola's site, at The Greatest Nutrition Researcher of the 20th Century. Price found value in raw foods, including whatever of the various meats, fish, dairy and plants were seasonally available.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Relevant to the current discussion:

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...-1984-1a.shtml

Excerpts below - read the whole article for the interesting chart, which I could not get to copy properly.

Longevity & health in ancient Paleolithic
vs. Neolithic peoples


How does the health/longevity of late Paleolithic hunters-gatherers compare with that of the Neolithic farmers who succeeded them? Periodically one will hear it stated in online discussion forums devoted to raw foods and vegetarianism that Paleolithic peoples only lived to be 25 (or 30, or 35) years, or whatever age. (The lack of exactitude in such figures illustrates how substantiating one's "scientific facts" is not usually a very highly emphasized value in these forums.) The intended point usually being that those terribly debauched flesh-eating cavemen--and women, presumably--were not living very long due to their consumption of meat.
As is often the case with such "facts," however, if one looks at the documented sources, one sees a different picture. Here we present a summary of a classic paper on the health and longevity of late Paleolithic (pre-agricultural) and Neolithic (early agricultural) people.

[Source: Angel, Lawrence J. (1984) "Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed farming in the eastern Mediterranean." In: Cohen, Mark N.; Armelagos, George J. (eds.) (1984) Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture (proceedings of a conference held in 1982). Orlando: Academic Press. (pp. 51-73)]

Note that these figures come from studies in the field of "paleopathology" (investigation of health, disease, and death from archaeological study of skeletons) of remains in the eastern Mediterranean....

The table below is adapted and condensed considerably from Angel's full table included in the above paper. Angel comments on the indicators given in the table below that archaeologically, lifespan is the simplest indicator of overall health. Growth and nutrition status can be generally indicated by skull base height, pelvic inlet depth index, and adult stature--the latter two of which are shown here in addition to lifespan.....


The main thing to note here about the short average lifespans compared to modern times is that the major causes are thought to have been "occupational hazards," i.e., accidents, trauma, etc., stresses of nomadism, and so forth. It is not always clear how strongly other conclusions can be drawn about the effect of diet from these figures, but all other things being equal--

Median longevity decreased slightly during the first several millennia after the introduction of agricultural foods during which plant foods became a greater part of the diet, and meat a lesser part, than previously. This would seem to indicate that meat/protein consumption itself would not have been the factor responsible for decreased longevity (since less of it was being eaten after the late Paleolithic).
From some of the later time periods involved where civilizations were on the rise and fall, it appears that social factors have the biggest impact on longevity, particularly since longevity never rose above about age 45 for long, often falling below that figure for centuries at a time, until the 1900s, since which time it has almost doubled. Perhaps the most reliable conclusion to be drawn from the data here is that while diet is a significant influence on longevity, it is only part of the mix, and perhaps not as powerful a determinant as other factors. Angel himself comments on the interplay among them:

....interesting tidbits on diet and health from Angel's paper relating to the Paleolithic/Neolithic transition:

In prehistoric times (which would include Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods in the table above), human infant mortality was 20-30%. (For wild animals, the figure is 60-80%.)...


"The best explanation for relatively short [Paleolithic] life span is the combination of stresses of nomadism, climate, and warfare. The latter is especially clear in the Jebel Sahaba population, where projectile wounds affecting bone are very common and 'almost half the population probably died violently.' [Wendorf 1968]" (pp. 59-60) [Note: violence/trauma as a major cause of death was also true of the Mesolithic as well.]


Drop in stature due to nutritional stress begins appearing in places during the Mesolithic although in general it is still good. One site shows signs of seasonal growth arrest. [Note: Growth arrest lines in bone are seen in the young of populations experiencing seasonal food shortages and consequent nutritional shortfall.]

Hunting continued at a high enough level, however, so that protein and vitamin D levels were maintained at sufficient levels to sustain relatively healthy growth, and only small losses in adult stature are seen overall compared to the Paleolithic.

Mesolithic subsistence was characterized by four new practices and inventions: (1) The use of "composite" tools fashioned from multiple rather than simply single materials, including harpoons, arrows, and sickles; (2) the bow-and-arrow (which partially replaced spears and atlatls [an atlatl is a spear-throwing device]; (3) domestication of the dog for hunting (which also became pets); and (4) harvesting of wild grain (prior to actual cultivation later).


During the Neolithic, population density increased from 10 to 50-fold over the Paleolithic, supported by the spread of grain-farming. Angel estimates meat consumption fell to 10-20% of the Paleolithic level with this transition in subsistence.

....farming was hard work, and skeletal evidence shows signs of the heavy effort needed, which--combined with a diet adequate in calories but barely or less than adequate in minerals from the depleting effects of phytate (phytates in grains bind minerals and inhibit absorption)--led to a state of low general health. The considerable decrease in stature at this time (roughly 4-6 inches, or 12-16 cm, shorter than in pre-agricultural times) is believed to have resulted from restricted blood calcium and/or vitamin D, plus insufficient essential amino acid levels, the latter resulting from the large fall in meat consumption at this time (as determined by strontium/calcium ratios in human bone remains).

Low nutritional and health status continued from the late Neolithic with only slight fluctuations until Classical times 5,000 years later, as told in the evidence of skull base height 15% below the Paleolithic norm, a pelvic inlet depth index 7% below, and 3 to 4 times higher rates of dental disease. (Efficient early childhood growth is reflected in skull base height and in evidences of dental health, while pelvic inlet depth index and long-bone roundness are indicators of the degree of late childhood nutrition.) Strontium/calcium ratios point to low levels of red meat consumption.

However, zinc levels were on a par with those of modern times (a mineral that typically is gotten in the largest quantities from animal foods) strongly suggesting it was coming from fish, since red meat consumption was low, and the zinc levels found are beyond the amounts possible from plant-food consumption only.

Given this animal food source for critical skeletal-building minerals--which would normally also be reflected in good values for skull base height, pelvic inlet depth, and adult stature--the poor mineral status reflected in these measurements points to part of the explanation as the effect of continued phytate intake from grains, a substance which binds minerals preventing efficient absorption.


Angel sums up the Paleolithic-to-Neolithic-and-beyond transition as follows [p. 68]:

Disease effects were minor in the Upper [Late] Paleolithic except for trauma. ...

The other pressure limiting stature and probably also fertility in early and developing farming times was deficiency of protein and of iron and zinc from ingestion of too much phytic acid [e.g., from grains] in the diet. In addition, new diseases including epidemics emerged as population increased, indicated by an increase of enamel arrest lines in Middle Bronze Age samples....

We can conclude that farmers were less healthy than hunters, at least until Classical to Roman times......

--Ward Nicholson

My comments:

1) Mean or median age at death is a poor indicator of health status while alive due to high infant and maternal mortality and much higher per capita deaths due to homicide in paleolithic populations. I have no nostalgia for paleolithic central heating, hi fi systems or social systems. Other than my hobby of bowhunting, it is only the metabolism and food environment of the paleolithic I am interested in. No Rousseau for me, thank you.

2) Even with median age at death biased against paleo populations, there was a decrease in this parameter with the transition to agriculture.

3) Note the physical parameter of height and pelvic inlet depth. These would not be affected by a different homicide rate and are direct correlates of nutritional status. PID declined markedly with grain cultivation and has yet to return to its paleolithic value (97.7 paleo, 84.6 1000 years before sugars and white flower, 92.1 today) Clearly the first nutritional transition - the transition to agriculture - had a significant negative effect on physical indices of health that were independent of the later additions of sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup.

4) I think it important to point out, it is reasonable to think that less disease and better indicia of health would predict greater longevity, but this is by no means assured nor is it a necessary part of my theory. If aging and the timing of death is regulated by genetics modified by epigenetic factors, one could still be healthier in every respect while alive yet your expected maximum lifespan might not change. That said, I personally believe that both lower carb and gluten grain consumption will eventually be proved to correlate with longevity. The best proxy for low blood glucose levels we have is Hemoglobin A1c and this is strongly predictive of future mortality.

5) Finally, I am still trying to falsify my assertion that there was calorically significant wild grain consumption (enough to cause us to adapt to such) before at most 10-15,000 years ago in either the new or old world. I have reviewed three more anthropology textbooks and searched for papers. I also consulted a good friend who has a Master's degree in anthropology and is a professional field archaeologist in the upper midwest. He confirms my reading of the literature. I am still wiliing to look at any peer-reviewed literature if anyone directs me to it.

RM

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I think those Paleolithic guys never lived past 30 years old because they just never got behind the concept of flossing. BTW Raja, I find the cheetos and coke diet very interesting. But if we take this ball and run with it, we'll have to give all due credits to C1ue for having come up with the core concept. Cheetos and coke. I can just see myself on a desert island with nothing else to eat. ... I think soon, I would swim out to sea, to be in communion with the sharks. :rolleyes:

[c1ue]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Spartacus,

Sorry, but unless you believe the bible - prehistoric man did NOT live to 70.

Or if he did, then all those primitive people in Brazil, New Guinea, etc are doing something really wrong.

http://www.brazil-brasil.com/cvrjul97.htm

a Brazilian Indian in 1995 should expect to live an average of 42.6 years

http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/bop.htm

True, beginning about A.D. 1000, there had been improvement in human well-being, but it was of a sort so slow and unreliable that it was not noticeable during the average person’s twenty-five-year life span.

Were there individuals who lived longer? I'm sure there were a few just from statistics. But on average lifespans were NOT anything near modern ones. Note that above lifespan is basically pre-contact modern civilization. Since then it has gone down considerably because greater human densities = greater chances for disease.

So please be aware of Rosseau-ian tendencies - they're bulls**t.

After agriculture, the biggest change in the human diet occurred only 200 years ago when food was subjected to industrial processes. We are not adapted to white sugar, refined grains, artificially hydrogenated oils and the plethora of chemicals added to our foods.

As for this - again you fail to take into account just how much time is needed for true genetic drift in humans. It is debatable whether even the 100,000 year span of agriculture is enough time for significant modification.

Secondly if true genetic modification were able to occur so much faster, then I would equally expect different ethnicities to have difficulties interbreeding - certainly there has been isolation between many of the different races for 10,000 years or more.

Lastly it is complete ridiculous crap that somehow diets from 200 years ago are somehow better than today because they're 'natural': grains and animals have been genetically modified the old fashioned way for millenia.

The corn, wheat, cows, whatever we eat today resemble the 'ancestral' strains about as much as Fluffy the kitten resembles a sabre tooth tiger.

The belief that going 'back to nature' is healthier is simply cherry picking convenient facts - a great marketing ploy.

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

It's my understanding that there have always been people who live into their 90s and 100s.

this age seems to have taken hold around the same time as human uric acid rose enormously and the cerebellum grew.

Maximum age has remained constant, average expectancy varies all over the place.

For example: prehistoric man probably didn't live much past 40, if not less. Thus a good half of our existing population shouldn't even be around from that viewpoint - certainly it is very possible that the bodies we have were only meant for a warranty period of 40 years (or less).

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Since extruded, de-germed starches and colored sugar water (Cheetos and Coke) did not exist during most of human evolution, we could not be adapted to them, so their consumption probably does not lead to good health.

While I entirely agree that Cheetos and Coke probably do not lead to good health, I suspect the reason you state for this is insufficiently subtle.

The juice that I get from running organic veggies through my fancy Green Star twin gear juicer probably did not exist in that particular form in paleolithic times either. But I am confident that juice is healthy stuff.

It is necessary and fitting, in order to substain billions of people on this planet, that we adapt our agriculture, food processing and diet in ways that were neither necessary nor possible in paleolithic times.

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

The other things I consider when looking at this issue are simply that modern man is so far removed from its evolutionary past that the adaptations evolved may also no longer be relevant.

After agriculture, the biggest change in the human diet occurred only 200 years ago when food was subjected to industrial processes. We are not adapted to white sugar, refined grains, artificially hydrogenated oils and the plethora of chemicals added to our foods.

Returning to a diet similar to that prior to industrialization would be a dramatic realignment with our evolutionary heritage.

For example: prehistoric man probably didn't live much past 40, if not less. Thus a good half of our existing population shouldn't even be around from that viewpoint - certainly it is very possible that the bodies we have were only meant for a warranty period of 40 years (or less).

I don't understand why you would say this, when the average lifespan of modern people is in the 70s, and some people in less industrialized groups life to ripe old ages.

Two other thoughts on this . . . .

1) The 40-year lifespan may be averaging in infant mortality. The average woman probably had 15 offspring, of which only 5 may have survived childhood.

2) Life was dangerous, and there were no modern antibiotics. These two facts of early life would dramatically lower lifespan.

Since modern people can easily live into their 80s and beyond, it is quite likely that pre-historic people had the same capability, though it perhaps rarely played out that way.

In a similar vein, past behavior does not predicate future performance. The traditional diets of regions in Europe are no more indicative of healthy living than one consisting of Cheetos and Coke: both are very recent from both evolutionary and behavioral standpoints.

Think of it this way . . . .

Paleo humans probably ate everything that was edible in nature. Traditional diets do the same more or less, with some cultural variations. If you believe that the body evolved with certain nutritional requirements, then eating in this way gives you the best chance for good health.

Since extruded, de-germed starches and colored sugar water (Cheetos and Coke) did not exist during most of human evolution, we could not be adapted to them, so their consumption probably does not lead to good health.

[c1ue]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

This has been an interesting thread - always good to see what the prevailing medical opinion is.

I can't help but wonder though how said prevailing opinion may evolve as further information comes to light.

After al opinions even 20 years ago were radically different.

The other things I consider when looking at this issue are simply that modern man is so far removed from its evolutionary past that the adaptations evolved may also no longer be relevant.

For example: prehistoric man probably didn't live much past 40, if not less. Thus a good half of our existing population shouldn't even be around from that viewpoint - certainly it is very possible that the bodies we have were only meant for a warranty period of 40 years (or less).

Secondly there is a lot of variation which seems to not be genetically but environmentally triggered. The 'decoding' of the genome has given us an illusion of understanding but very possibly not far removed in thinking from Mendel - i.e. not correct but usable for modeling purposes. The entire proteomic research field could be viewed in this light.

Lastly the very fact of evolution leaves us with genetic dead ends and artifacts. It is well known that genes are very stingy about removing any material. The view that 95% of the human genome is junk might well be revised as time goes by - because one thing that has already been observed is that the sheer complexity of the massive numbers of codons can give rise to behavior which itself is not predictable by examining the individual components in isolation.

This is not much different in quality than a large complex software program. Anyone who has worked with such has no doubt discovered fascinating quirks (i.e. bugs, but sometimes features) in large complex and old software due to the multitude of actions and semi-inert routines coming to life in various unanticipated ways - though of course in quantity the human genome is still the king.

What it boils down to is whether there is true understanding or merely the illusion of it.

In a similar vein, past behavior does not predicate future performance. The traditional diets of regions in Europe are no more indicative of healthy living than one consisting of Cheetos and Coke: both are very recent from both evolutionary and behavioral standpoints.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Yes - so they could eat more vegetables, and the nutritional deficiencies in the grain component of their diets would be then rendered innocuous and moot. That's the salient point, isn't it, given that the thesis here is that the mere presence of grains in a diet under any conditions, sparks a host of inflammatory responses in a significant subset of world populations?

Isn't that the macro thesis of this thread? But with respect, you are making observations instead, about generalized malnutrition here, while leaving a reader to conclude implicitly (in accord with Rogermexico's thesis) that the sum of these illnesses is "due to the presence of unleavened bread". This arguably may be a murky rationale to implicate grains, while malnutrition seems obviously part of the mix.

Grains as the "smoking gun" reason, could be then seen as an imprecise conclusion. The reason could just as easily (indeed more plausibly) be ascribed to the absence of sufficient vegetable variety in their diets. If varied fresh vegetable input were in that actual diet, it would be highly likely to render the zinc deficiency moot, as well as all other trace nutrient deficiencies.

This point alone (malnutrition - where? And how much of a contributing factor?) makes the famous "celiac disease resulting from grains consumption" thesis start to look a bit detached from firm moorings. Or in plain English, this phenomenon is ALSO known as common variety malnutrition, available in innumerable guises worldwide?

We could describe this entire conversation therefore, as an exercise in "how to blithely ignore the broad contributing relevance of nutritional deficiencies" while enthusiastically and vigorously researching all of the illnesses that can be made handily attributable to grains consumption". :rolleyes:

Could it be because the rest of the grain-eating world doesn't get half of their calories from unleavened (high phytate) breads? FWIW, the prevalence of unleavened bread in the mideast, combined with the lack of zinc replacement in their soils, leads one to consider that subclinical zinc deficiency may be extremely widespread in that part of the world. If true, it could explain many things....

[Sharky]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

But seriously, how do you explain why the rest of the grain-eating world does not suffer hypogonadal dwarfism? Obviously, something else is going on.

Could it be because the rest of the grain-eating world doesn't get half of their calories from unleavened (high phytate) breads?

FWIW, the prevalence of unleavened bread in the mideast, combined with the lack of zinc replacement in their soils, leads one to consider that subclinical zinc deficiency may be extremely widespread in that part of the world. If true, it could explain many things....

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

You've sparked a very fertile new line of potential imputations to grain as the origin of multiple disorders here Sharky. Good stuff! :rolleyes:

No need to stop at only Celiac Disease when it comes to grain's insidious role - we can add as "attributed directly to the grains" - Diabetes, several thyroid diseases, including Hashimoto's Thyroditis, Autoimmune Myocarditis, Grave's Disease, Primary Hyperthyroidism, Dermatitis Herpetiformis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Crohn's, myriad other gastrointestinal and endocrine system disorders due to grains, and so on and so forth. That's quite a pedigree to paste onto the humble grain family. Meanwhile Sub-Saharan Africa and the Far East remain irksomely "anomalous" to the thesis, as they appear to be comparatively CD free. Yet they consume grains regardless?? Well, go figure. That is one heck of a lot of "anomalous" exceptions to the thesis tucked away in just a couple more "world regions" (1 - 2 billion people in aggregate) - 'not readily conforming" to the grains=celiac thesis? :rolleyes:.

Southern Hemisphere Africa and the far east must not have "gotten the memo" yet. An audacious thesis' work is apparently never quite done.