On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Mary Rittenhouse wrote:

> In a message dated 04/20/2001 8:46:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > First there is not enough knowledge, and second there is no evidence
> > that there anyway is anything that is "the right" food for a certain
> > individual. If also need for right amounts and variety are considered
> > it gets even harder to determine something as "paleo correct".
>
> Okay...then it's okay to eat pasta?...and bread ?
> I was just wondering if piosyachios were acceptable....because peanuts and
> cashews are not.

The replies that you got had some valuable insights.  First, it
can be very difficult to decide whether a given food was indeed a
significant part of any real paleo diet.  Second, the claim that
peanuts and cashews are not paleo is itself open to serious
question.  Since peanuts *are* edible raw, they pass that
particular test.  But since they are from the New World, they
have not been part of the human food supply for a very long time.
The latter consideration, however, weighs equally against all New
World foods.  So you must decide which consideration has the most
weight.  If it is edibility in the raw state, then peanuts are
okay.  If it is avoidance of foods that were only recently
introduced into the human food supply, then peanuts, tomatoes,
and all other New World foods are out.

How any of this would suggest that pasta and bread are paleo is
beyond me.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]