On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:17:21 +0200, Erik Haugan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>* Eva Hedin (2005-03-30 21:14):
>> Because peas and beans are seeds even if they are a bit large.
>
>It's not that simple.  Nuts are seeds aswell, but they are still paleo.
>
>The only vegetables that are generally "meant" to be eaten, are sweet
>fruits.  The evolutionary function of sweet fruits is to make animals
>spread the seeds within, and for that reason they're usually low in
>antinutrients.  Other fruits, seeds, roots, stalks, leaves, flowers or
>any other part of a plant may contain antinutrients in order to
>discourage vegetation.
>
>On the other hand, many animals have evolved counter strategies, such as
>enzymes that break down certain antinutrients.  The question is what
>strategies humans have evolved, and the answer to that lies in our
>evolutionary past.  The question is not wether to eat seeds or not, but
>_which_ seeds our ancestors ate in sufficient quantities for long enough
>to adapt somewhat to.  I believe at the very least that some nuts are in
>that category.
>
>And then there is the question about antinutrient lowering techniques,
>such as soaking, fermentation, germination and cooking.  In which cases
>are they sufficient?
>
>Erik

Hi Erik,

Thank you for the above explanation - it is very helpful in trying to
understand some aspects of the diet. For those of us who are not scholars
of the Paleolithic Era it can be difficult to understand the scientific
background.

Karen

P.S. I grew up in Denmark, lived there for 30 years - Jeg er dansker, men
bor i South Carolina. Jeg kan se du er fra Norge.