That brings up an interesting question: If we define paleo foods as edible
raw then why do we fuss over the cooking aspect so much? I mean if paleo
people used fire to cook and I believe they did, then why would edible raw
even have any meaning? Should we not simply seek to find out what they ate?
Jim Cales - [log in to unmask] - ICQ UIN 1492607
Columbia, Missouri USA 65203 - (573)875-5581 - MSN:[log in to unmask]http://www.ComputerGuruForHire.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "S C" <[log in to unmask]>
> What rule do you use to decide if a food is "paleo"? I know you consider
> starchy tubers to be okay (or some of them, anyway). You think that some
> legumes are okay (for example, peanuts and snap peas). Where do you draw
the
> line? Do you define a food as paleo if it can be eaten raw? Is that your
> touchstone?
> What about the fact that fire was available for most--if not all--of the
> paleolithic period? Do you think that paleo people cooked any of their
> food--for example, meat?