Primal Nutrition vs Biblical scriptures
I have a close friend who I am trying to reason with and explain the dangers of a high consumption of grain is. This friend is a very religious person. This leads him to not believe in evololution and not believe the earth and humans are as old as science says we are. This makes it diffucult to try and explain to him how we are not designed to eat bread when he doesn't believe that humans were around 200,000 years ago. Anyway his main argument with me is the bible refrences "bread" many times and how they survived solely of bread. Now I tried to reason with him saying the bread in biblical times and the bread of modern times are completely different especially when you take into account the amount of genetic modifications grains have gone through.
My question is does anyone know of any studies, articles, findings, or sources that can prove what exactly was it they were eating when they reffered to bread (or manna) in the bible and how is it different then todays bread. It would be extremely helpful.
I don't mean to be aggressively pessimistic here, but why are you trying be logical with someone who doesn't believe in evolution? Don't worry about the "historic" aspect of the PB, just show them all the links floating around about how bad wheat is to our digestive system and ask him if he really wants to live on something that is slowly killing him from the inside (along with the other myriad of SAD conditions likely to pop up).
They have been talking about that particular issue in the primal christian thread if you want a more targeted audience. I'm of the opinion that results and having someone ask questions are the only way to influence someone though.
Well, I'm deeply religious and believe that Adam and Eve tilled the earth- therefore I believe that agriculture has been around since the beginning of man. I also spent 3 months doing an anthropological study on a group of Africans that have been basically untouched by civilization that subsist primarily on corn.
That said- I also believe the Primal Blueprint to be solid. The way I reason it, is that early man probably did not eat much grain- probably mostly vegetables and meats. Even if they did eat a lot of grains, they were doing a LOT more physical activity than the average American today (even athletes), so they probably were able to consume the carbs faster than they could eat them. I think the proof about the lipid hypothesis being wrong and the science behind Mark's nutrition is solid.
I just take the evolutionary aspect of it with a grain of salt.
Also, we see lots of references to grains being eaten regularly in the scriptures. Just because the people of the Bible ate grains, doesn't mean it's healthy or good. They were probably not in the best health and did not live very long.
All things in moderation. I've lost 50 lbs and I still take the bread sacrament at church every week.
Well, as a Eastern Orthodox Christian, I can answer this question theologically, but I won't (to spare most here).
Anyway, why is the Bible mention when it's main purpose is not about nutrition, Biology, Geology, and whatnot? Yes, those who lived in the biblical times did eat bread, but they also ate meat and did not consume what most on the SAD eat(i.e., sugar, processed foods, etc) and was WAY active than most today (just think of Saint Paul's long missionary journeys...lol).
In any case, prove to him why Primal is correct based on modern day science.
Because he is a close friend of mind and while our afterlife views may differ I still would like to see him avoid some of the diasterous effects of grain. What prompted the discussion is because he is trying to get into shape and get fit and when I suggested he go paleo and described it would be eliminating grains such as bread, rice and beans he looked at me like I was insane
Originally Posted by SlimIcy
Can you link me to this thread topic? Im sure there is tons of info there
Originally Posted by Daemonized
Can you elaborate on this sentence (the proof about the lipid hypothesis being wrong ) or provide a link with more info please? That must have been an awesome enlightening experience to study them. Was there anything published on the study?
Originally Posted by soniayak
I would probably sound like an idiot but what does the acronym SAD stand for? Also interesting point about them being more active. Next time I talk with him and it comes up I will use that to counter him something like "well maybe if you walked to work and everywhere else you go like they did in the bible then just maybe you can eat a few grains"... thanks
Originally Posted by Zed
I can't quite remember where I read this, but ancient wheat varieties (like einkorn) have a significantly lower gluten content than modern wheat, and may not provoke the same autoimmune response.
As for manna, the Old Testament describes it differently at times, suggesting that it was sweet, bread-like, or oily. It also goes bad overnight (unlike bread). I'm not a biblical literalist, but if I was, I would interpret that to mean that it was a complete food substance that met all of the Israelites' nutritional requirements (so definitely not just bread). Some scholars have suggested that it could be tree resin, insect secretions, lichen, or a fungus. Icky, yes...bread, no.
The Primal Holla! Eating fat. Getting lean. Being awesome.
You were sick, but now you're well, and there's work to do. - Kilgore Trout
At least in one instance, God preferred meat and saturated fat:
“And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Jehovah. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell” (Gen. 4:3-5).
One presumes "fruit of the ground" to be wheat or barley.
...what does the acronym SAD stand for? SAD = Standard American Diet
Information on the lipid hypothesis can be found in many discussions here. Just search the forum and Mark's blog posts.
Anyway, I've found that people are hard to convince with words. If you look great and are obviously fit and happy, they'll want to know how you did it.
Last edited by Egerland; 10-20-2010 at 03:27 PM.
Have him watch the movie "Fat Head." Totally shows how SAD and CW are so wrong.
Right on sister. Plus, the wheat back then was more protein based.