On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Phosphor wrote:

> >> yes and no. we exclude grains and legumes according to kind.
> > Why?
>
> well, they're not paleo. i thought you agreed at least on this principle.

I do not, because I don't think paleolithic people chose foods
according to kind, i.e., that's a legume so we'd better not eat
it.

> > This, of course, applies to animal foods as well.
> yes that's correct. fish especially. but allergies from mammal meats are
> relatively rare. allergies and intolerances to plant foods are wide-spread.

Do you reject a food because *others* (not you) have trouble with
it for some reason?

> there's almost no plant food that doesnt contain some kind of potential
> allergen, or anti-nutritional factor.

But a "potential allergen" is simply a protein that might trigger
an allergy in someone.  Allergies from mammal meats may be rare,
but they happen.

I don't get the principle here.  You seem ready to reject any
plant foods that cause problems for *someone*, not necessarily
you, but not ready  to reject animal foods for the same reason.

Animal foods contain antinutrients too, such as the avidin in
eggs.  In sufficient quantities, SFAs interfere with EFA
utilization, which would make them antinutrients as well.
Although some fat is necessary for calcium absorption, too much
fat inhibits it, by forming soaps with the calcium.  This makes
fat itself an antinutrient, at high enough levels.

It's absurd to think that paleolithic people avoided foods just
because of some antinutrient content, so why should you?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]