On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, ardeith l carter wrote:

> Ardeith writes:
> OK.....dried beans, soaked in water and cooked, give
> me flatulence(sp?).....and I've read here that beans
> contain some compounds that are anti-paleo...or just
> bad for you........but I fail to see quite how beans
> can really be considered un-paleo.

The "party line" on this is that mature beans contain enough
"secondary compounds" (i.e., anti-nutrients, toxins, and lectins)
to be inedible without processing, so that makes them unpaleo.
Immature beans, such as "snap" peas, clearly are edible without
processing, so there is no prejudice against them.

On the other hand, the amount and type of processing needed to
reduce the secondary compounds to levels comparable to actual
paleo foods is minimal and, arguably, at a paleolithic level.
That is, soaking and rinsing are adequate to render some beans,
such as lentils, edible (if still chewy).  After that, they could
be sealed in a animal bladder with fresh water and buried with
hot rocks from an fire, a procedure known to Boy Scouts as a
"bean-hole bake".  I guess it's just an open question whether
this is really paleo-level technology.  It's obviously well
within the capabilities of every known extant "stone age"
traditional culture.  And, as one writer notes, "Almost no
evidence exists that eating cooked beans will harm humans."

So it's a judgment call, I guess.  Another issue is that many
beans are fairly high in carbs.  But that is equivocal, too.  We
care about carbs because of their effect on insulin, and some
beans have extremely low glycemic and insulin index scores --
notably lentils and peanuts -- as low as or lower than meats.
This indicates that one could still achieve excellent insulin
control even while making moderate use of beans.  Chick peas,
which you mentioned, have a glycemic index that is just about as
low as lentils, but I don't have any information about their
insulin score.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]