Ben Balzer wrote:
>Of course, there are other UNDISCOVERED MICRONUTRIENTS and only a
>paleodiet provides the right amount of these.
That's our intention, isn't it?
And the known micronutrients can give us hints how the
actual historic paleodiet looked like.
> Where do all the bad things in the diet
>come from ? SEEDS- eg wheat, barley, beans,corn, etc. If you want to
>eliminate toxins, eliminate seeds. Nature puts toxins into seeds.
Right. Seeds are very nutritious, they have to live on their own
for quite a while, when growing.
That's why nature often protects
them with a toxin defense, as the whole plant itself is protected.
The more nutritious - the more protection,
because otherwise it'll be too easy for the eaters.
Of course, on the other hand the plant-eaters - we all are such -
have developped adequate antitoxins and
digestion enzymes to cope with the antinutrients (toxins).
In addition:
Latest "antitoxin" is here - the heat treatement (cooking). It made
available some *very* nutritious things (potatoes, lentils, cereals
to some extent even meat) to human nutrition.
Nevertheless some sensible persons will experience bad effects
(like allergies) if the antitoxin system doesn't work.
Nuts have the most food allergy cases,
according to an allergologist i know.
Btw plants' defending stuff (toxins) are often *used* in a useful
way by the (nature intended) eater.
Garlics and Oreganums toxins are perfect antibacterial and in
exately this property very useful to us.
Same for most spices.
Studying d'Adamos lectin essays it came to my mind that the
anti-cancer-properties of some lectins may be even useful to some.
Some which have developed the ability to tolerate these lectins
- maybe for that reason.
>Nuts are seed kernels too.
>....where birds were breaking open seeds and eating the kernels-
>they would then fly to a riverbank and eat a mud that contained
>something that neutralised the toxins.
!Kung do process their mongongo nuts too.
Some indians on U.S. west coast even processed Oak-seeds to be
their main staple food.
>Attenborough made it clear that fruits were offered to animals so
>they would carry away the uneaten seeds and deposit them in a pile
>of dung so that a new plant could grow, benefiting both parties.
So that's why we should expect (natural) fruit to be as
eater-friendly as only could be. It's a competition of the fruit for
the best animal spreading the seed inside.
Meat is protected by teeth, horns , skin and feet of the animals and
so needs less or no defensive toxins too.
>If the seed kernel were eaten, then no plant
>would grow- therefore nature wisely inserted toxins into the kernel
>to discourage animals from eating them.
>Now, this brings me to nuts which are of course seed kernels. There
>is no advantage to a plant to give away its kernel, ...
It has. Look at a large nut tree. It throws down thousands of its
seeds *below its own feet*. Not even one of them has a chance to
grow, as long as the big tree lives. Why to grow so much seeds then?
(One big might be enough in a couple of years)?
The answer are again the seed-eaters (like squirrels or humans).
They *gather* the seeds occasionally leaving some of them in the
near or far surroundings. This is a big advantage for the tree.
Since the nut comes in a very nice and costly package (the shell)
it further encourages it's storage and transporting
- e.g. for squirrels and humans.
And the shell protects the nut, so it needs less toxin defense.
Actually the protection substances are more against insects
when the nut-masses are intended for the gathering animals.
>... so it has advantages for the plant to put toxins into nuts.
It has, but it musn't be too discouraging :-)
for the mentioned reasons.
>I've recently been informed that wild almonds contain lethal doses
>of cyanide - and the domestic ones we eat are because of a mutation.
True. Almonds are the stones inside some fruit, similar to peaches.
Somehow *some* of the fruits happened to contain no bitter at all,
and that was their main competition advantage against all other
trees. Humans spread them to have a nutrition source already waiting
at a certain location they passed by.
Can you imagine even a *very* early human after a delicious
(almond) meal to insert some of the seeds in the earth at a good
place? I think they knew and observed very well how growth and
fruitbringing of trees works. A very little work for future
generations or later comeing back to a known location.
>Root vegetables are another interesting topic.
Roots are protected by beeing underneath the earth, so it's an
advantage for the plant to include the best parts down there.
And an advantage for early humans, which, equipped with
sticks (sharp or not) were able to dig them out.
If the plant has storage organs underneath the earth, it's called
a tuber and even nearer to what we want:
Storage organs provide more energy as mere whole living beeings,
and energy is what we need most.
>My advice- get back to your roots.
d'accord :-)
Regards, Amadeus
--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
|
