Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:15:15 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Anna L. Abrante wrote:
> In a message dated 4/9/99 11:45:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > If we use the criterion that a paleo food is one that is edible
> > in the wild state,
>
> Is that really what we are using as a criterion?? I thought it was foods that
> existed in the Paleo era.
This is the criterion that is used in Neanderthin, which is why I
paraphrased it. Foods that are available to a "naked with a
sharrp stick" person are essentially foods that are edible in the
wild state.
> Aren't there a lot of foods that can be eaten in the wild state that are too
> new
> to be recognized by the body, and hence cause us problems, like allergies??
I think so, yes.
> Like certain fruits, ie oranges, strawberries, bananas. According to "Food
> in
> Antiquity", most fruits we know today aren't Paleo at all. They can't be
> traced
> past 8000BC at the earliest.
I don't know this book (or is it an article?), but this makes
sense.
> The only food besides meat
> that has truly ancient history is nuts....maybe squirrels are the only true
> Paleo
> creatures left........
It also appears to be a mistake to suppose that all meats are
paleo, for the same reason that it is a mistake to suppose that
all fruits are paleo, if we follow this logic. And of course the
same is true of nuts. People *do* have allergies and
intolerances to various meats, and of course seafood allergies
are not uncommon.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|