----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Todd Moody" <[log in to unmask]>
> The difference between edible and inedible plants is that the edible 
> ones have lower levels of secondary compounds; they are not necessarily 
> devoid of them.  Cooking lowers the levels of secondary compounds in 
> otherwise inedible plants to levels comparable to those in plants that 
> are edible uncooked.  The only diet that would be devoid of secondary 
> compounds would be an all-meat diet (but no raw eggs!).  While this is 
> certainly an option, I think nobody would suggest that a paleo diet 
> *requires* it.  And since cooking (not just fire) extends well back into 
> the paleolithic era, to before the appearance of modern homo sapiens, 
> cooking is paleo.  That doesn't mean that a paleo diet entails cooking, 
> but it does mean that it includes it.  Cooking made more foods available 
> by making more plants edible, and it did so in indisputably paleo 
> times.  So the "edible raw" criterion of paleo doesn't line up very well 
> with what actual paleolithic people were probably doing for the last 
> quarter million years or so.


Well said....  Now, about that book......  I'm still waiting.....Oliva