On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Phosphor wrote:

> > 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.
>
> how did u work that out?

You are arguing that allergens are a reason to avoid plant foods
*in general* are you not?

> if X is allergenic to person Y, then Y should avoid
> X.

Agreed.  And if X is allergenic to person Z, but not to person
Y, then this is not a reason for Y to avoid it.

> some other plant foods contain universal anti-nutrients, like phytic
> acid, or universal toxins, like cyanides in flax.

The presence of antinutrients is not a reason to avoid foods
altogether, and certainly was not a reason for paleo people to
avoid them, since they didn't even know of their existence.
These substances are only problematic when consumed in large
quantities.  The same is true of cynaides.

> what paleo man couldn't
> eat, ie grains and legumes, happen to contain substances in both classes.

And foods that he could and undoubtedly did eat also contain
substances in both classes, but in lesser amounts.  The mere
presence of an antinutrient or toxin simply doesn't make a food
nonpaleo.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]