>>>Yes, but he's talking about WILD almonds, and goes on to explain that
>>>domesticated almonds aren't bitter and are perfectly fine.
>>>
>>What's the difference between almonds and potatoes, then?  If we avoid
>>potatoes because the domestication was what made them edible and minor
>>amounts of the toxins are still present in the domesticated version, then
>>shouldn't the eating of almonds follow the same logic?  Are potatoes a no-no
>>for any other reason according to NeanderThin thinking?

I suspect the potato is singled out because it of its practical
similarities to grains: early potatos required cooking/processing to be
edible (though modern potatos can be tasty raw at times), they have a high
complex carb content, and can be stored for a long time. Since Neaderthin
doesn't consider cooking anethema, the potato presents a problem. Modern
potatos aren't toxic and are so "rich" cooked that they are easily
overeaten, possibly raising the Neanderthin low-carb diet into a much
higher carb one.

I can think of few items in the produce department which are very similar
to their wild progenetors (blueberries would probably come closest, eh?).
If one took seriously the notion of not eating anything that our
paleo-ancestors couldn't eat that would pretty much scratch the meat
department as well. Which leaves wild fish and shellfish.

Obviously, some compromises are going to be made unless calorie restriction
diets merge with the paleo-diets ;)

My own two cents about almonds is that they are similar enough to other
wild and non-toxic nuts to be eaten if desired. I haven't eaten any for
years since I've had no attraction. Maybe if I had no animal foods for a
while they would become interesting enough to eat again...

Cheers,
Kirt

Kirt Nieft / Melisa Secola
[log in to unmask]