[ExI] Why I'm done arguing about grains and diet for now

[J. Stanton]

[More debunking, illustrating why I'm done with this particular 
conversation.]

From: Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com>
 > However, from http://www.physorg.com/news180282295.html :

That's the original article.  You're moving the goalposts in circles, 
which is one reason that this discussion is over.

>> Then there is the lack of cooking vessels -- and throwing loose kernels of
>> grain *in* a fire is not a usable technique for meaningful production of
>> calories. ?(Try it sometime.) ?Note that the earliest current evidence of
>> pottery is figurines dating from ~29 Kya in Europe, and the earliest pottery
>> *vessel* dates to ~18 Kya in China.
>
> This is just silly. Do you really believe that pottery is necessary in
> order to enable eating grain? I think it's highly likely that they
> could have soaked whole grains in water...

So you're allowed to make WAGs, but I'm not?  That's another reason this 
discussion is over.

>> I'd like to see it supported by someone who doesn't have a stake in their
>> own non-paleo diet business.
>
> What is Julio Mercader's "non paleo-diet business"?

Mercader showed that some quantity of sorghum was ground up in a cave 
105,000 years ago, along with some quantity of root vegetables.

It's only the anti-paleo diet pushers who have made the leap from there 
to "seed grains were an important year-round food source that provided a 
substantial proportion of caloric intake for all hominids from that 
point onward".

Once again: if you're hungry enough, you'll eat tree bark.  Doesn't mean 
it's good for you, or even digestible.

>> Also, the more active one is, the more carbs one can safely consume for
>> energy. ?I don't think any of us maintain the physical activity level of a
>> Pleistocene hunter-gatherer, meaning that 1/3 is most likely too high for a
>> relatively sedentary modern.
>
> Well, we don't really know how many calories the average caveman
> burned in a day, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually pretty
> low. Food often wasn't abundant and little could be stored. Hunting
> couldn't be too much of an exertion because then a failed hunt would
> leave one potentially too weak to hunt again. I think it was generally
> a low-energy lifestyle.

This paragraph is ludicrous, and is yet another reason this discussion 
is over.  Our best estimates for average hunter/forager workload are 
slightly over 20 hours/week...100% of which is physical labor.

Recall that 'hunting' with atlatl/dart and primitive bow/arrow involves 
tracking and chasing animals over long distances, not sitting motionless 
in a blind with a weapon capable of killing at hundreds of yards.  See: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo

Then, try butchering an animal with stone tools.

Recall that 'gathering' involves constant walking, and digging when you 
do find food.  Recall that you're digging with your hands and with 
rocks, not shovels.

Recall that stone knapping is physical labor, and chopping spear hafts 
out of tree trunks using a rock is very, very hard work.

Yes, hunter-foragers spend a lot of time goofing off...but their work is 
100% physically intensive.

>> -Grains have little or no nutritive value without substantial processing,
>> for which there is no evidence that the necessary tools (pottery) existed
>> before ~18 KYa
>
> Bullshit. Pottery isn't necessary and the processing isn't substantial.

Evidence for its existence?  You're moving the goalposts again: basing 
arguments 100% on speculation is OK for you but not for me.  Another 
reason this discussion is over.

>> -One can easily live without grains or legumes (entire cultures do, to this
>> day). ?One can even live entirely on meat and its associated fat -- but one
>> cannot live on grains, or even grains and pulses combined
>
> Irrelevant and wrong. Irrelevant because the ability to live without
> grain doesn't imply that doing so is necessary or even desirable.

Absolutely relevant, and already covered in previous message.  You're 
simply throwing insults now.

> Wrong because there are lots of people who live without eating meat or
> animal fat.

The earliest evidence of vegetarianism dates to ~2500 BC, and is 
religious in nature.  And one cannot live entirely without animal 
products ('vegan') without the use of industrial products (exogenous B12 
supplementation, 'enrichment' of grains, industrially extracted oils -- 
all grown in geographically widespread biomes) to provide essential 
nutrients.

Meat, in contrast, is always in season, available in all human-habitable 
biomes, and bioaccumulates all essential nutrients.

>> -Grains are not tolerated by a significant fraction of the population
>> (celiac/gluten intolerance), and are strongly implicated in health problems
>> that affect many more (type 1 diabetes)
>
> Such people should restrict their grain consumption.

This is foolhardy, because we have no way of knowing who they are ahead 
of time.  It's like saying "People who are going to die in a car 
accident shouldn't drive or ride in cars."

Yet another reason this conversation is over.

>> And how do you propose to make that cave impervious to rats, mice, insects,
>> birds, pigs, and every other animal that would eat the stored grain?
>
> Do really have a hard time figuring that out? How about wrapping it
> tightly in a hide or leaves, burying it, and covering it with rocks?

And what evidence is there that this occurred?

One might think that large grain storage pits would leave traces in the 
archaeological record -- especially since they would be filled with 
grain residues, which are detectable on grinding rocks in extremely tiny 
quantities.  Yet these traces are not seen.

Underground cave storage of grain is known, but only well after 
agriculture is established in an area.

And as far as above-ground storage: put some grain in a cave in 
equatorial Africa, wrapped in leaves, and let me know how that works for 
you.

>>?The oldest granaries
>> known date to 11 KYa in Jordan. ?Furthermore, the oldest known granaries
>> store the grain in...pottery vessels, which didn't exist until 18 KYa.
>
> What about the oldest unknown granaries? Or the possibly numerous
> smaller personal stashes? We, obviously, don't know.

Once again, you're moving the goalposts.

>> Agriculture isn't one single technology...it's an assemblage of
>> technologies, each of which are necessary to a functioning agrarian system.
>
> WTF does agriculture have to do with this? We're talking about *wild*
> grain consumption.

And for wild grain consumption to make a meaningful contribution to 
year-round caloric intake, long-term storage is necessary.

JS
http://www.gnolls.org