On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:19:32 -0600, Alec Wood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> If cocoa is a nut you could classify it with hazels, almonds, pine nuts  
> etc.
> But then someone could argue that if cocoa is a seed and eating seeds is  
> paleo,then why is wheat, rice and barley not paleo because they are just  
> seeds of grass?
 
> If you pick wheat pods and eat them raw are they paleo?
> And since I brought up wheat. Is Buckwheat, which is not related to  
> wheat and not a grass, paleo?
The non-paleo part of eating wheat, barley, rye, other grass seeds, and
buckwheat, quinoa, etc., is the totally unrealistic quantities of these  
things
people eat.  If you had to collect wild grass seeds, toast off the awns  
and hull,
and then eat what remained, or if you just ate the bigger ones when soft  
and green, you'd get just a little bit.  This is not the same as having  
cereal for breakfast, sandwich for lunch, pasta for supper, and cookies  
and crackers throughout the day.

If it was in the environment, and it was edible, you can bet that paleo  
people
ate it.  But 18 hours a day of gleaning grass seeds would not provide the  
amount
of wheat most people eat in the course of that day, unless they were  
gleaning in a
modern wheat field.  Grasses with their edible seeds have been on this  
Earth far
longer than humans; they weren't invented along with agriculture.

The other approach to this matter is that Ray Audette said grains were not  
paleo
in "Neanderthin" and that is that.  Depends upon whether you prefer logic  
or
authority :-)

	Lynnet