On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Jim Walsh wrote:

> Can you explain why you think peanuts are paleo? I presume they are
> edible raw?

Yes, peanuts are edible raw.  My grandmother ate raw peanuts
daily for decades.

> I also presume you do not adhere strictly to the no legume "rule"?

I think it's a bogus rule, since it's based on a botanical
classification that would have been meaningless to actual
paleolithic people.  Annette Stahl, one of the people referenced
in _Neanderthin_, cites research showing that apes eat certain
legumes during part of the year.  The fact is, some legumes are
edible raw, particularly during when they are immature ("snap"
beans, etc.).  Stahl also documents that this applies as well to
other food sources, i.e., things that are edible only when
immature, such as various shoots, sprouts, etc.  There is simply
no basis for calling such foods non-paleo.

Various plant foods (and some animal foods) contain compounds
that are toxins or antinutrients.  Stahl refers to these as
"secondary compounds."  What makes a food inedible is not the
absolute presence or absence of secondary compounds but the
*level* of them.  That is, if the ratio of secondary compounds to
primary compounds (=nutrients) is high enough, we can't eat it,
or we have problems eating it.  The edible "paleo" foods have
most or all of the same secondary compounds, but in levels that
we can tolerate.

This is the whole point about cooking and other food processing
methods.  These methods reduce the level of secondary compounds
in some inedible foods to a level comparable to that of foods
edible without cooking.

It would still be a mistake, in my view, to make a food that was
probably a minor part of the paleolithic food supply anything
more than a minor part of a modern "paleo" diet, but I don't
think that entails the exclusion of them altogether.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]