On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Wally Day wrote:

> > Monkeys enjoy peanuts, too, even though they are
> > New World beans.
> > >Obviously, if you're going to argue that tomatoes
> > are okay
> > >because our primate ancestors could have eaten
> > them, then peanuts
> > >pass the same test.  It's both or neither.
>
> Are we just splitting hairs here?

Yes, but this particular hair appears to be sitting right in the
middle of the soup.  As Neanderthin has it, what makes a food
acceptable is the fact that we have had a very long time to adapt
to it.  The "naked with a sharp stick" rule is just a substitute
marker for this.  But it's no good to say that our ancestors had
millions of years to adapt to the proteins in tomatoes if there
were no tomatoes where our ancestors were back then.

To put it in different terms, they needed more than a sharp stick
to get tomatoes.  They needed a boat capable of a transatlantic
voyage.

> This topic seems to
> come up quite a bit and it seems _I_M_H_O_ there are
> actually a number of ways to look at it. First, when
> we look at "old world" foods - are they actually the
> same today as when our ancestors originally ate them?

Probably not.

> And what about the "new world" versions of "old world"
> foods - are they close enough genetically to their
> potentially distant relatives? And how many foods to
> which we were originally adapted are now long extinct?
> And what about regional differences in the human
> species (race) - what kind of impact would that make
> on adaptation to a particular type of food?

Yes, these are all confounding variables.

> Since we can't go back in time (yet?) and actually
> live in the paleolithic era, I think we have no choice
> but to need to experiment with, and adapt to what is
> available to us today (within reason, of course).
> Which is why I like the definition posted a few days
> ago - no grains, beans , or milk (Ray adds potatoes).

It works until you begin to fine-tune, as your questions below
illustrate...

> By the way, I have a question regarding peanuts. My
> understanding is that peanuts are a legume, the same
> as peas and beans are legumes. Are legumes in general
> considered non-paleo, or just beans? Where do peas and
> GREEN beans fit in (both are edible raw)? Where would
> that leave peanuts? I believe they are also edible raw.

Yes, peanuts are edible raw, as are green beans.  "Green" wheat
kernels are also edible raw, after you roll them in your palms to
get rid of the husks.  If you view these things from the
standpoint of their botanical categories, then they *don't* fit
in.  That is, if you think of this simply as a grain-free,
bean-free, dairy-free diet, then these foods are out.  If you
think in terms of what paleolithic people could have eaten,
they're not necessarily out.  Unfortunately, since we know little
enough about what they actually did eat, figuring out what they
could have eaten is about as good as it gets.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]