PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ben Balzer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:09:07 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Lundin <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [P-F] Pototoes


> * Ben Balzer ([log in to unmask]) [991005 00:05]:
> * Subject: Re:      [P-F] Pototoes:
> > > Question: Are potatoes really non-paleo?
> > >
> > > I had a friend that ate potatoes raw, and liked them so they seem to
> > > edible
> > > raw.  From that definition aren't they are paleo?
> > > There IS the issue that they are very high in carbs.
> > > What is wrong with potatoes?
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard Keene, Novell Inc, Provo, Utah, 801-861-4389,
> > > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Potatoes are VERY non-paleo.
> > They have amongst the highest level and broadest range of antinutrients
of
> > any food. They have a huge range of protease inhibitors and lectins
> > (haemagglutins). From my recall, only soy beans come close. Do not eat
them
> > raw, they will stuff your system up.
> > Even cooked, plenty of their antinutrients will still be active.
> > The main benefit of eating paleo is that you eliminate your major source
of
> > antinutrients- grains. If you're eating potatoes you may as well start
> > eating all the other crap as well. If you are eating potatoes, you are
not
> > eating paleo.
> > They fail my paleo tests.
>
> I remember reading of studies were people were only
> allowed to eat whole potatos (with the skin), but they
> could eat as much as they wanted.  The group supposedly
> lost excess weight and returned to health.  Unfortunately,
> I didn't read the actual study, but read about it
> second-hand in health and diet books. :-(
>
> I would have thought that if the anti-nutrient load was
> very high, that the people would have starved to death
> and suffered massive health problem before that.
>
This confirms that they aren't nourishing. They are ingestible but they are
not edible as such.The protease inhibitors block your digestive enzymes, the
lectins do other nasty things. In rats, raw soybeans have the same effect-
they cannot grow on them. So, I imagine these people lost weight due to
starvation essentially, but that the return to good health was really when
they went off the diet. That is to say that if you gave raw potatoes to
people of normal weight, they would lose weight too! cf on paleo they
wouldn't.
Ben

ATOM RSS1 RSS2