Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 14 May 2008 11:25:55 -0500 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Moody" <[log in to unmask]>
> The difference between edible and inedible plants is that the edible
> ones have lower levels of secondary compounds; they are not necessarily
> devoid of them. Cooking lowers the levels of secondary compounds in
> otherwise inedible plants to levels comparable to those in plants that
> are edible uncooked. The only diet that would be devoid of secondary
> compounds would be an all-meat diet (but no raw eggs!). While this is
> certainly an option, I think nobody would suggest that a paleo diet
> *requires* it. And since cooking (not just fire) extends well back into
> the paleolithic era, to before the appearance of modern homo sapiens,
> cooking is paleo. That doesn't mean that a paleo diet entails cooking,
> but it does mean that it includes it. Cooking made more foods available
> by making more plants edible, and it did so in indisputably paleo
> times. So the "edible raw" criterion of paleo doesn't line up very well
> with what actual paleolithic people were probably doing for the last
> quarter million years or so.
Well said.... Now, about that book...... I'm still waiting.....Oliva
|
|
|