PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 Oct 1999 07:19:19 -0400
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (62 lines)
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Ben Balzer wrote:

> Tests for Paleo-Kosher.
>
> A. Toxin aspects-
> 1. Is it edible without cooking? If not, avoid it.  If not, then it will
> contain toxins in the raw state (otherwise why would it be inedible?)
> 2. Is it a seed? If so, avoid it. Phylogenetically seeds share the same
> problems- they contain toxins (protease inhibitors, haemagglutins)(to freeze
> their metabolism and fight pests), and secondary metabolites (half processed
> chemicals to help speed early growth)., etc, etc. These substances are what
> cause most of the health problems of grains. These issues apply to all
> seeds- grains, beans, etc.

The trouble with your second criterion is that it is irrelevant
to the "paleo" concept of eating what paleolithic people probably
ate.  They knew nothing of protease inhibitors, etc., and would
have eaten what was edible.  Many seeds and nuts are edible.
While I don't deny that it may make sense to make choices that
are informed by knowledge unavailable to paleolithic people, I
don't think it's a good idea to subsume such restrictions under
the heading of "paleo-kosher."

> 3. Skins of fruit and vegetables are more likely to have higher
> concentrations of toxins specifically to fight pests.

Same comment as above.  Are the skins edible?

> B. Foods that are likely to be OK:
> Fruits- fleshy bodies containing seeds.Phylogenetically all similar.

Again, phylogeny was irrelevant to actual paleolithic food
choices.  If Neanderthin is to be believed, what matters is
exposure to the specific proteins and chemicals in foods, and
these vary significantly *within* phylogenetic categories.  For
example, not all berries are edible.

> C. The co-evolution aspect- looks at Old World vs New World foods. I don't
> put a lot of credence in this as I think phylogenetic properties of plants
> are
> more important.

Why should they be?

> D. .Is it available without technology- specifically excludes refined
> sugars, dairy products etc.

Does it then also exclude refined fats, such as tallow and
coconut oil?  Refining merely extracts a substance from its
source and thereby concentrates it.  A bottle of olive oil is
certainly a refined food product.

> Is this a helpful approach? Maybe we should develop FAQ's.

I think we should develop FAQs, but I think the principles of
paleo nutrition should be distinguished from those of scientific
nutrition, in which food choices are guided by what we know but
paleolithic people didn't.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2