On Thu, 10 May 2001, Hala Winter wrote:

> Just curious...what do you mean by antinutrients?  I really do want to
> know...it seems I've eaten LOTS of things raw, and often, and in great
> quantity, that the book says are "bad".  Peas are the worst offenders, but
> I've also enjoyed lima beans and potatoes raw...especially the tiny
> "fingerling" potatoes...cut up with lemonjuice and watercress...mmm..

In my view, it is a mistake to take the "taxonomic" approach to
this way of eating.  That is, while Neanderthin places the entire
taxonomic category of legumes off limits, the reality is that
some of them are edible raw, some of the time, as you already
know.  One of the articles referenced in Neanderthin, A. Stahl's
"Hominid Dietary Selection Before Fire", make the point that
there are some legumes that some other primates eat, during parts
of the year.

> What's the verdict?  And what exactly is the problem?  Does it leach other
> nutrients out of your body or prevent their absorption (that's what
> "antinutrient" sounds like to me)?

Yes, an antinutrient is a substance that interferes with the
absorption of a nutrient.  Phytic acid is an antinutrient because
it binds to minerals and prevents their absorption.  Phytic acid
is found in the bran of grains and in legumes, and also, to a
lesser extent, in some fruits.  Oxalic acid is an antinutrient
for exactly the same reason; it is found in spinach, rhubarb, and
other foods.  The avidin in raw eggs is an antinutrient, as it
interferes with the absorption of biotin.  There are also
antienzymes, such as trypsin inhibitors, that interfere with the
digestion of protein.  Tannins also interfere with both starch
and protein digestion.  They are found in some leafy foods and in
some fruits.

Stahl also discusses cholinesterase inhibitors, under the heading
of "toxins." These substances interfere with the utilization of
the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, and thus fall into the
category of "neurotoxin." Cholinesterase inhibitors are found in
some legumes, in broccoli, turnips, radishes, asparagus,
tomatoes, carrots, celery, oranges, apples, and raspberries.
Solanine, also a cholinesterase inhibitor, is found in potatoes.

As you can see, many of the toxin-containing or
antinutrient-containing foods are foods that are nevertheless
considered "paleo", because they are edible raw.  They are edible
raw because the concentrations of these substances, which Stahl
collectively calls "secondary compounds" are low enough that we
can tolerate them.  It is a mistake to think that "paleo" foods
are free of toxins and antinutrients.

Cooking and other processing techniques can reduce the
concentrations of secondary compounds in some foods to levels
comparable to those found in edible-raw foods, thus rendering
them edible as well.  As it says in Neanderthin, cooking makes
the inedible edible.  What it doesn't say is that the distinction
between edible and inedible is not sharp, and most plant foods
are somewhere on a continuum, in terms of their load of secondary
compounds.

Another factor is that many plants are more edible in the
immature state, because the secondary compounds are not yet
present in high concentrations, hence the edibility of peas, and
probably those little potatoes that you mentioned (I'm not sure
about them).

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]