> The point is not to argue for a blanket acceptance
> of legumes as
> paleo foods, but to argue against a blanket
> rejection of them.
> Stahl and her commentators recognize that the
> edibility of
> legumes must be considered on a case by case basis,
> not
> generically, and that the mere presence of
> antinutrients does not
> make a food inedible for humans or other primates.

Good points, Todd. I'd also like to add that some of
the "verboten" foods, although not likely to be
preferred, were at least available for emergency
situations (flood, drought, etc). In fact, the first
attempts at cultivation might have been to develop an
emergency surplus of sorts. Grains and legumes can
keep for years in the right environment.

On the other hand, in times of plenty, I'm sure nobody
would even think of eating many of those foods. I know
I wouldn't (hate beans, used bread as a "meat holder"
only, potatoes are booooring). Imagine being in the
savannah and you have a choice - digging up roots, or
spearing fish (or whatever). I think most of us on
this list would opt for the latter - the "fun"
activity rather than the tedious one.

Once again (in a rather roundabout way), we return to
the opposing concepts - surviving vs. thriving.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/