Assuming paleolithic people did not avoid such foods,
perhaps these (EA, and Oxalate) play some sort of
balancing role with other nutrients in the diet.  They
maybe harmful in large amounts or maybe they are
counteracted by some other foods eaten.  If this is
the case, is it possible that durning Paleo times
sources of these foods could have been growing close
to each other?

Just a thought.




...  But I doubt that
> paleolithic people
> avoided all erucic acid.
>
> And I just looked up ground mustard seed, which has
> 10.7g/100g of
> EA, so I guess that would be off-limits, too.  Of
> course,
> paleolithic people would know nothing of such
> things.  Australian
> aborigines have been eating macadamias for a long
> time (That's
> where they are from).
>
> This is just more evidence that the fact that a food
> is paleo
> doesn't entail that it is free of all things that
> one might find
> problematic.
>
> Another example: oxalic acid.  Like phytic acid,
> oxalate binds to
> iron and interferes with its absorption.  While
> phytate is found
> mainly in grains, oxalate is found in tea, spinach,
> rhubarb, and
> sardines -- all paleo foods.  I mention these foods
> because they
> are rich enough in oxalate that doctors typically
> tell people to
> avoid them if they have a problem with oxalate
> kidney stones.
>
> Todd Moody
> [log in to unmask]
>


=====
-kb.
[log in to unmask]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com