PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Bruce Kleisner <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 3 Sep 2003 00:43:45 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
"Kirt Nieft" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Bruce:
> > support the claim that we can't find raw
> > brazil nuts, un-shelled pistachios, walnuts, pecans, ...
> > and almonds at the least.
>
> You can't find them commercially without much effort.
> Most are dried at high temperatures.

Provide some evidence. I have many sources that say the
nuts mentioned will sprout. Shelled peanuts, macadamias,
cashews, and hazelnuts will not. Do you claim that even
un-shelled "raw" brazils, walnuts, almonds, pecans, and
pistachios get dried at high temperatures?

> > A "stop" doesn't necessarily mean we've satisfied
> > our body's needs.
>
> Who knows?

I get stops with raw and cooked food. I think most other
people do too, except those eating SAD. So, the lack or
delay of a "stop" does not imply heat. Nor does it imply
lesser nutritional value. We can explain changes in our
appetite with more complex theories.

http://www.apa.org/releases/obesity.html
http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/bul1273325.html

> > I've eaten up to half a pound of nuts a day, along with
> > other paleo or raw or low-carb foods, and LOST weight.
>
> I didn't say anything about weight. Only that truly raw nuts have a
> more pronounced stop. If that doesn't sit well with you, that's OK.

The experience of myself and other people provides abundant
counter-examples plenty to that theory. In short, you have
not explained the phenomena to any degree. If you mean to
imply that cooked food has less nutritional value or causes
health problems (including obesity), you've failed to make
your case. The apparent inference did not sit well. Perhaps
you mention it for other reasons than to create insecurity?

Neither I nor 99.999999% of the world's population follow
Instincto. Reductionistic raw-foodist theories leave me
cold. The amount of food required to get a stop is a SIGN.
Nothing more. One can interpret it however you want. You
can say cooked food has less nutritional value, so it does
not satisfy as quickly. I can say it has more nutritonal
value, so we like it more. I can say that cooking destroys
toxins in raw foods (esp plant-based ones). I can say that
destroying toxins lets us eat more while the toxins in raw
food force us to eat less.

Regards,
Bruce Kleisner

ATOM RSS1 RSS2