PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Fredrik Murman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:53:38 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>So, I guess
>that sweet potatoes (at least some kinds of sweet potatoes) are
>more "paleo" than nightshades. Despite this, I'm still more wary about
>sweet potatoes than nightshades -  nightshades are fruits and evolved for
>something to eat them.

According to the definitions I have adopted, normal potatoes (solanum
tuberosum) are nightshades, and normal potatoes are not fruits. So, not all
nightshades are fruits.

I know a lot of bad things about normal potatoes, but haven't found much
about sweet potatoes. I know that sweet potatoes contain phytoalexins, and
that these substances can cause lung edema. They're hepatoxic to mice.

Fredrik

ATOM RSS1 RSS2