>    From:    Wally Day <[log in to unmask]>
>    Subject: Re: Meats vs. grain/legume
>    
>    > Ray unearthed real data to support his Paleodiet
>    > Hypothesis. Unsupported ideas and speculation are
>    > a dime a dozen, and in this forum seem mostly to
>    > distract from the purpose of Paleodiet support.
>    
>    How can speculation and conjecture regarding a subject
>    detract from the subject?

This is not the forum for speculation and conjecture.
This is a Paleolithic Eating *Support* List.

>    > >  ... absence of evidence does not
>    > >  > equate to evidence of absence
>    > >
>    > >  That last statement makes no sense.
>    >
>    > Far from not making sense, it is an important tool
>    > in one's logical-analysis toolkit.
>    >
>    Then the statement should have been worded, "Lack of
>    evidence does not equate to evidence of the contrary".

Now who's being pompous? Taste aside, the two are synonymous,
but mine is easier to remember and points out how
to avoid logical fallacies.

>    > >  the *conventional* wisdom is that the body can
>    > adjust
>    > >  to beans over the long haul and "learn" to
>    > properly
>    > >  digest them.
>    >
>    > Provide some facts to back up this wishy-washy,
>    > unsupported
>    > assertion.
>    
>    From the "Wild Oats Bulk Food Guide" (Adjusting to
>    beans)

Oh, now that's a real tome of scientific exactitude!
Even its *name* is non-Paleo.
>    
>    "If beans are new to your diet, introduce them slowly
>    to allow your intestinal bacteria to adjust and make
>    bean digestion more efficient."
>    
>    From "Companion Guide to Healthy Eating" by Natilie
>    and Shirley Nigros (Beans and Flatulance)
>    
>    "...If beans are truly the culprits, the solution is
>    simple: Reduce the complex sugars or do away with them
>    entirely. Proper soaking and cooking of beans (see
>    prior subsections) can eliminate a great part of the
>    problem. In addition, make beans a regular part of
>    your diet. Then your body will adjust to the new
>    situation and the problem of flatulence will
>    disappear....

Irrelevant - why should I accustom my body to legumes'
toxins & indigestibles when they aren't Paleo anyway?

>    From Stephen Gislason MD (Toxicity of beans and
>    cooking)
>    
>    "Lima and kidney beans are toxic uncooked. Both beans
>    contain cyanide producing compounds (cyanogenic
>    glycosides), which can be destroyed by adequate
>    cooking. Small amounts of cyanogenic glycosides will
>    be detoxified by the liver. Cyanogenic glycosides are
>    also
>    found in fruit pits millet, sprouts, yams, maize,
>    chick peas, and cassava root."
>    
>    "An unusual genetic condition, "favism", makes some
>    people sensitive to vicine, a nucleotide in fave
>    beans; these people develop red blood cell damage
>    (hemolytic anemia) after eating the beans. Cooking the
>    beans thoroughly can reduce this effect. This is a
>    specific example of the cytotoxic mechanism of food
>    molecules, and illustrates the advantages of cooking
>    foods."

Yeah, yeah, yeah... all the preceding does is to reaffirm the
Golden Rule of Paleodiet: don't eat anything that needs
to be cooked to become edible, even if the result would be
*arguably* edible after cooking.

I submit that Ol' Wally here seems to be looking
for a way to convince everybody that beans are okay --
thereby subverting the purpose and intent of this forum,
which is based on principles what have already rejected
that idea. Why the perverse need to challenge Paleo?

>    
>    As far as whether or not this is "on-topic", I believe
>    it is. Learning and eventual acceptance of something
>    is not accomplished by blindly accepting whatever
>    someone has to say. I ask these questions and make
>    observations to further my (and hopefully others')
>    understanding of the Paleodiet theory, not because I
>    want to undermine or detract from the discussion.

Wrong. Wally's denial is irrelevant. When he says,
"further my understanding..."  he really means,
"agressively promote my own contrarian viewpoints."
This is a SUPPORT list, not a forum for creating
fear, uncertainty and doubt about Paleo's viability.

I too enjoy a devil's-advocate argument now and then,
but in its proper place -- which PALEOFOOD is *not*.
Try sci.nutrition instead.

The one ounce of validity in Wally's argument is that
the radically different intestinal flora needed to
handle legumes (in addition to necessary cooking)
probably *are* incompatible with the meat/fat-eating
integral to Paleo. Interesting... but so what?
Paleos already know from hard experience that
eating that ice cream cone or a bowl o' beans brings
its own punishment. Attempts to mix Paleo with
elements like those only recreate the problem
we're trying to avoid in the first place:
getting fat & sick on the SAD-WOE

Anecdotes about Paleo failures & misadventures are
far more relevant than pseudo-academic speculations.
Might as well discuss the precedents for shit-eating
in the Animal Kingdom: interesting (kind of) but
again not relevant to Paleo.