This post is going to be lengthy. I'm going to question
some basic assumptions -- hopefully in effort to asymptotically
approach dietary "truth" in some meaningful way. In general,
I find the Paleo concept extremely satisfactory. I find myself
filling up on fibrous food instead of on bread and such, and
that is working out great. But with the broad outlines settled,
I want to chew over the "fine print" a bit, to get the details
right.

Sharp Stick?
-----------
The first assumption I'd like to question is whether "a sharp
stick" is the only critereon for what makes a paleo food.
As I understand it, the degeneration of man's health and physical
stature began with agriculture. The use of fire began somewhere
near the middle of paleo times, yes? So burning a hunk of meat
over a fire didn't seem to impact man's health any.

That gives "a sharp stick and a fire" then. Next, I wonder: Were
there no clay bowls or other pottery artifacts? (I ask in all
seriousness, being essentially clueless on the subject.) But I
*expect* that mankind was smart enough to figure out how to boil
water. That yields "a sharp stick, a fire, and a pot of hot
water". And that makes a difference on what foods we might want
to consider "paleo".

I think we have to agree with the proposed modification, because
otherwise we have to outlaw soup from the paleo diet. Support for
the modified position might also be taken from the Neanderthin book,
which recommends green tea. So it seems reasonable to assume that
the paleo diet consists of anything you can make edible using a
sharp stick, fire, and a pot of hot water.

Personal Experience
-------------------
What got started me on this line of thought was the ignorant bliss
that characterized my first week on this diet. A friend (Kent Multer)
send me a copy of Arthur DeVany's wonderful paper. (A shortened
version is now available at http://www.evolutionaryfitness.com/).

Due to my wonderul state of ignorance, I cut out all forms of
refined carbohydrates, but included side dishes like potatoes,
corn, rice, green beans, and kidney beans. I felt wonderful, and
dropped 6 lbs like a hot rock.

Then I got smart.

I picked up the book that helped promote this wonderful "back to
nature" concept (Neanderthin), and found out that those starchy
foods don't qualify. So I went several days without.

The result was the same basic symptoms you get when overtraining:
fatigue, general malaise, dissatisfaction etc. Now, maybe this is
a short term effect. Or maybe it is a sign that the "pure" paleo
diet, as defined in this forum, is carb-deficient. (I believe it
was the Sports Nutrition specialist, Michael Colgan who pointed
out that to address the symptoms of overtraining you should cut
back on your workouts, cut your protein intake, and increase your
carb ration. Or maybe it was Sears. Anyway, it was good advice.)

So my personal experience is that including some starchy vegetables
made me feel better. (It was also a heckuva a lot easier to get a
meal in a restaurant.) So, is that an idiosyncratic applicable to
me and a few others, or is it a general truism that can be applied
to the whole paleo foods approach? In particular, in a diet that
is otherwise "paleo" in nature, does it make sense to include:
  * corn
  * rice
  * potatoes
  * beans

Starchy Vegetables
------------------
With the possible exception of beans, I note that these are rather
starchy vegetables. Since many arguments have been made against
these foods, it makes sense to consider them individually. First,
though, as a general note, there was the interesting part of a
Neanderthin that said, "when you reach your target weight you
can add back some carbs".

That was a significant statement, I think. It suggested the author's
experience was such that he, too, did better when small amounts of
carbs were part of the diet. If my experience is any indication,
then, it would seem that including some of the starchy vegetables
with each meal would make sense.

Rather than waiting until you get to your ideal weight then, wouldn't
it make more sense to include them from the get go? It's possible that
you would approach your ideal more slowly, but be more satisfied
along the way.

Now, for specifics:

Corn
----
When I noticed corn classified as a grain, it was with some
consternation. The argument was made that it can't be eaten
raw. But in fact, it can. In fact, corn is *great* raw. Once
you've eaten it raw, you may wonder why you ever cooked it!

The second argument was that arthritis followed corn as it
spread throughout the world. I accept that as true, but I
wonder whether that effect came from corn per se, or from
the corn tortillas (and flour tortillas??) and other dietary
changes that went along with it.

Fundamentally, the question is: Would paleo man have roasted
it over a fire, put in a pot, or eaten it raw. The answer
may well be yes, I think, although I would welcome any
evidence to the contrary.

Rice
----
Now if a hot pot of water is included in the critereon, so that
people threw things into soup to see what came out, then rice
seems to be as reasonable an inclusion as green tea.

One counter argument to that is that rice really needs to be
rinsed thoroughly before cooking. It improves the taste, if
nothing else. But the fact that it does improve the taste
makes more likely (although not certain) that the rinsing
technique would be discovered.

On the other hand, finding some wild rice is one thing, and
farming rice paddies is pretty serious "agriculture". Perhaps
the fossil record substantiates the claim that physical
degeneration occured in oriental societies when rice farming
began. We know it began in western societies with the advent
of grain-based agriculture, but I haven't seen anything that
specifically pointed to oriental societies. (One has to go
a pretty long way back...)

Potatoes
--------
Again, if soup is the critereon, then potatoes would seem to
be reasonable. There have been a number of arguments against
potaties based on present-day knowledge, but did our ancestors
have that information or suspect it back then? I'm not sure
they did.

Certainly, potatoes have to be handled properly -- but the same
is true of rice and meat. There are things you need to do and
things you need to avoid. But when you're making stew, they sure
help out.

A second point of information on that subject would be the
"strong, noble bearing" of the American Indian from which those
potatoes came, in contrast to the European culture that imported
them. In light of that, it's difficult to see how potatoes could
warrant a blanket condemnation.

Beans
-----
Here, I find myself on much less firm ground. It is known that
beans have to be soaked and then rinsed to remove their toxins
before cooking.

Question #1:
  Do they really have to be soaked, or can they be merely rinsed?
  If rinsing is sufficient, then beans would be on pretty level
  footing with rice. On the other hand, if rinsing didn't materially
  improve the taste, then rinsing is less likely to have occurred.

Question #2:
  Did paleo people have the skills to figure that out? Dunno.
  But if they did, it would seem reasonable to include beans
  under the "soup scenario".

Summary (no conclusion)
-----------------------
So far it seems to me that some of the more starchy vegetables
might make sense as part of a paleo diet. But I await firm
arguments to the contrary.