* 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.

--alan