I'm sure that primal people ate whatever they could find, which, in season, probably included some grains. "In season" was probably a matter of a few weeks, or perhaps a couple of months each year. It is also unlikely that they were eating 6-11 servings per day. The grains that they did eat were significantly different genetically from what we eat today.
Figure out what works for you. The Weston A. Price diet isn't bad, or Michael Pollan's Food Rules works pretty well also, if you feel that grains don't negatively affect you.
[QUOTE=js290;579336][url=http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2011/09/21/interview-with-wheat-belly-author-dr-william-davis-part-two/]Fat Head » Interview With ‘Wheat Belly’ Author Dr. William Davis, Part Two[/url][/QUOTE]
Hmmm, interesting reading. Maybe I won't re-introduce Oats!
What's interesting is that that article lists isolated incidents of grain consumption. Yes, it's possible that people in those areas ate grains. It's also possible that they used them for primitive adhesives, poultices, or crafts of various sorts. In any case, even if they did consume them, two things come to mind:
[b]1.[/b] These findings point to [i]regional[/i] consumption of grains, not a direct global intake of grains by 98% of the world's population. The author of that article cannot use such small particulars to define a universal unless he can afford the reputation of cheap reasoning. The primal/paleo diet research is sound because it includes an understanding that grain consumption happened on a regional level while pointing out that the intake of grains as a regular staple was not universally accepted until very recently in history. The author of the article you pointed out reasons from isolated regions that paleo-man everywhere must've eaten grains because paleo-man somewhere ate grains. Such logic, isn't.
[b]2.[/b] As another poster pointed out, the wild grains consumed in the upper paleolithic era, and through most of agrarian history were different grains. That is, they were not the basterdized, hybridized, and GMO frankengrains that lace so much of our food supply today. They were a much "healthier", natural version of themselves.
I can appreciate the perceived need people have to repudiate the claims of the primal/paleo diet: it seems to be counter-cultural and therefore counter-intuitive. Thus it threatens the security of the faith many people place in conventional and medical dietetics; that makes people uncomfortable and riled. So their confirmation bias kicks in and they write dutifully about those things that confirm their initial comfortability: that America's food pyramid must be right because that's the way people have eaten for as long as they can remember. But a comfort-zone is not a confirmation, no matter how much another with the same comforts but more letters says so. When the facts are measured beside each other, the overwhelming evidence points at a diet much like Mark Sisson, Art Devany, Robb Wolf, Gary Taubes, et al. have described.
I agree with the bloodwork thing. Definitly get bloodwork done, then recheck it after 30 days being grain free, and see if there is a difference, if not, then eat your grains. That being said, people used to use mercury as a medicine, that doesn't mean it's good for you. (EDIT: By the way, I agree with researching everything, comparing conflicting studies, and questioning what you read. Make your own assumptions, make your own answers. Question your own answers. Question everything, and in the end do what works best for you as a person.)
[QUOTE=Boneidle24seven;579393]Hmmm, interesting reading. Maybe I won't re-introduce Oats![/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/saturated-fat/wheat-belly/]The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. » Wheat Belly[/url]
Do note that this article is from a blog. If you go to the originating website - [url=http://www.spartandiet.org]The Spartan Diet[/url] - you'll see a link from there to the blog. Also notice there's a Spartan Diet book about to be published as well. i.e. he's selling something. Additionally the blog references "a study by" and "according to" without giving any further reference and no quotes. If I were about to publish a "diet" book I'd want to target several "diets" that I might think could hurt my book sales or diets that if I could convert adherents would lead to increased book sales. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, it's just marketing but the lack of solid reference to his claims does bother me. Additionally, little doubt some grains made it into Grok's belly but it had to be in small amounts considering how labor intensive wild grain harvesting would have been. Finally, Dr. Jerald Diamond's book "Guns, Germs & Steel" calls agriculture in many ways a huge mistake (paraphrasing here). Dr. Diamond is one of the great minds of our time and personally I'd rather take the doctor's word on this subject.