> Paleo Phil wrote:
> >
> >> I think Todd is probably on the right lines saying that maybe they
> >> weren't listed as forbidden because they are so commonly used, and
> >> Audette wouldn't want to harm sales of his book over something
> >> relatively minor.  Or at least, his publishers wouldn't...
> >>
> >
> > But if Audette was looking to include as many foods as he could and
> make the
> > diet easier then why did he prohibit beets and turnips, which Cordain
> > allows, and why did Audette prohibit cheating, which Cordain allows
> for 1-3
> > meals per week?
> >
> To put it simply, Neanderthin has a few contradictions.  

I know about the contradictions and that may be a factor, but I was trying
to say that Ray was less interested in making the diet easy than he was
being a purist (a common criticism is that his book is TOO strict), so the
idea that he might have allowed nightshades to make the diet easier doesn't
seem likely. Cordain is less of a purist, so it is more plausible that he
might have permitted nightshades to make the diet easier, though I doubt
that he did.

> As for
> cheating, Ray Audette's "foreign protein" theory 

It's not his theory, it's a standard medical theory that has been around for
quite a while now. A Google search on "foreign proteins" will reveal this
(currently 240,000 hits). It's not even controversial in the immunology
field. What is new and controversial is that Ray proposes that dietary
foreign proteins are a causative factor in some conditions that are not
normally linked to immune system malfunction. If you don't like the term
"foreign proteins" you could use "antigens."

> stipulates that even a
> tiny amount of an offending protein is enough to restimulate an
> auto-immune response.  I have many reservations about this theory, but
> it's one of Audette's premises.

Again, it's not his premise. It's accepted medical knowledge. Audette just
reported what he found in medical journals on these topics. I've experienced
this particular phenomenon myself. This sensitivity can decrease over time,
which Audette reported in an interview and which I also experienced (as have
many other people). 

99% of the info in NeanderThin is taken from other sources. Ray's genius was
in recognizing all the links, putting the puzzle together and explaining it
in an easy-to-understand manner. He also added some interesting speculations
that build on existing knowledge rather than create a new theoretical model.
My current guess re: Audette is that he didn't research all the nightshades
thoroughly and so didn't know that some of the other nightshades have
alkaloid content that's close to that of potatoes. So that still leaves us
with the question of whether the other nightshades are healthy staple
foods--and whether potatoes may not be quite as bad as Audette thought.

> > ... It's possible [Audette] just didn't
> know
> > that the other nightshades contained toxic levels of alkaloids in
> their wild
> > form, or maybe Todd is wrong about all nightshades having been toxic
> in
> > their wild form. I don't know.
> >
> I don't think I ever said all nightshades were toxic in their wild
> form,
> if by "toxic" you mean that they were poisonous.  

You're right, it was Ashley who said, "I've heard that both tomatoes and
potatoes were originally much smaller and quite poisonous raw."

Todd:
> If I did say that, I'm pretty sure it's wrong.  

OK, so that's one area of disagreement. Anyone have any sources we can check
out? Ray Audette does say that wild potatoes were originally quite toxic and
had to be freeze-dried or some such thing to detoxify them. The only thing I
found re: tomatoes is that some people thought they were poisonous, but they
really were not. So my current understanding is that only the potato (out of
the nightshades that are currently regularly eaten--not talking about
tobacco and the like here) was essentially poisonous/inedible in its
original wild, raw form.

Todd:
> What I think I did say was that all
> nightshades
> contain some amount of the alkaloid toxin solanin, although it may be
> very small.  The domestication of these plants as crops involves, among
> other things, selectively breeding them to minimize solanin content.  I
> don't remember where I read that, but it doesn't seem particularly
> controversial in any case.

Well, it's the crux of the matter that started the discussion, so let's try
to get to the bottom of this. My curiosity has been piqued by this myself.
After all, regardless of whether Audette and Cordain hold a consistent
standard on what's Paleo, I would like to myself--trying to eat Paleo
because Paleo foods are supposed to be healthier is pretty much the point of
this WOE. I don't refrain from eating modern foods completely, so I'm not
trying to figure out whether I should avoid all nightshades completely, just
whether I should consider them Paleo and whether they are healthy staple
foods. Here's a recap of the initial discussion, as my memory was also
starting to get foggy on it:

Ashley wrote:
> I was thinking about nightshade plants today then came across this 
> thread... what exactly is and isn't safe out of the nightshade 
> family?  I've heard that both tomatoes and potatoes were originally 
> much smaller and quite poisonous raw.  I don't know if either of these 
> are true. ....
>
> Also, are peppers a good food?  I love ripe peppers and I can't 
> imagine them being poisonous or making anyone ill. ....

Mark wrote:
<<"Safe" is a relative term and really hard to pin down.  The green edges
sometimes seen on the edges of potato chips are the concentrations of the
alkaloid /Solanum /usually found in the skin of the potato.  

	Hybridization has reduced the concentration in some of the
commonly-eaten nightshade family members.  Still, I do not often eat these
just to help keep my body very low in the alkaloids.  Though I can't
substantiate it in any meaningful way, my feeling is that the hybrid
nightshades today are "slow" poisons that put a load on the body's good
health.  The foods I tend to avoid are eggplant, potato, tomato and peppers
(including paprika, etc.)  If I do eat them, I discard the skin first.
Check the information readily available on allergies and arthritis with
regard to nightshades.>>

Todd wrote:
<<As Mark pointed out, the nightshades have been selectively bred for low
solanin content.  But they still contain this toxin.  I was surprised to
learn that peppers have as much of it as they do.>>

So part of the crux seems to be, HOW MUCH has the alkaloid content in
non-potato nightshades been reduced over time and were they eaten raw by
Mesolithic American Indians? I don't have sources beyond NeanderThin on
this, but my current guess would be that the alkaloid content was lower for
the original wild non-potato nightshades than it was for wild potatoes, that
more selective breeding was necessary for the potatoes (I know there are
hundreds of varieties), and that Mesolithic Indians probably did eat one or
more wild, raw non-potato nightshades.

Todd:
> White potatoes are in fact edible raw, at least in limited quantity, if
> you avoid the skin and any green or discolored spots.  A number of
> people on this list talked about eating raw potatoes regularly, years
> ago.

Yes, lethal poisoning from eating raw potatoes is rare, though according to
Cordain it does occur, for he wrote in the PaleoDiet forum: "[T]here have
been more than 30 deaths reported in humans in this [20th] century from
eating raw potatoes (Slanina P.  Solanine (Glycoalkaloids) in potatoes:
toxicological evaluation. Fd Chem Toxic 1990 28:759-61.)." I have not heard
of lethal poisoning from eating tomatoes or peppers raw.

Todd:
> Plants contain what are called "secondary compounds", i.e., toxins and
> antinutrients.  They contain various levels of these depending on
> species, variety, age of the plant, time of year etc.  Those that
> contain low enough levels of secondary compounds are considered edible,
> in relation to a certain species.  Those with high levels are inedible.

Yes, the LEVEL of toxins/antinutrients and the resulting degree of
healthiness as well as safety seems to be the question here.

> accomplishes the same thing, only more slowly.  Reading Neanderthin,
> one
> might get the impression that the paleo plant foods are devoid of
> toxins
> and antinutrients, while the "forbidden fruits" are chock full of them.
> This is simply not the case.

Yes, that is one omission that misled me a bit at first, but I am trying to
get to the crux of the nightshade issue rather than critique NeanderThin.