Re: Peanuts,Potatoes et al

Ray Audette wrote: Humans are the second least genetically diverse mammal species because , according to our DNA, we are all related to the less than 1,000 humans who survived the Pleistocene Extinctions about 70.000 years ago.  Only Cheetahs ( one pregnant female 7,000 years ago) are less genetically diverse.

That's what I thought, too, until I read that anthropologist John Hawks, who seems to know his stuff, recently concluded that the hypothesized 70,000 YBP bottleneck has been refuted (as well as the 74,000 YBP Toba Supervolcano hypothesis -- http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/middle/petraglia_toba_india_continuity_2007.html), though he did concede the possibility of an earlier bottleneck: "maybe this early high level of inbreeding does represent a bottleneck, or possibly the rapid differentiation of a mtDNA variant under selection in Africa after 200,000 years ago." (Did humans face extinction 70,000 years ago? http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genetics/mtdna_migrations/sub-saharan-africa-population-size-behar-2008.html). This picture should become clearer as new genetic evidence is produced.

RA: Just because a food doesn't make one violently ill immediately doesn't it won't get you in the end.  Goober Peas, like all legumes, contain neurotoxins....

If you mean aflatoxins, peanuts can indeed be infected with aflatoxin-producing fungi, but does it give the most accurate impression to say that peanuts "contain" neurotoxins, or would it be clearer to say that they can become infected by Aspergillus fungi? It's also interesting that peanuts and groundnuts don't produce as high levels of allergy in Africa, where they tend to be boiled and/or air-dried, as in the USA, where they tend to be high-heat roasted. If peanuts and groundnuts were riddled with neurotoxins, it's doubtful that Africans would be able to consume groundnuts to the extent they do (and that scientists believe our ancestors did for millions of years, going back to at least Australopithecines), and survive, much less avoid severe legume allergies.

After seeing images of peanuts still in the shells, I realized that I used to eat lots of those right out of the shells as a kid with no noticeable problems. Can't believe I totally forgot about those. Is anything done to those other than air drying? We never called them "raw peanuts," just peanuts in the shell, so it didn't occur to me that they might be raw (air-dried), but I do remember that I liked them. IIRC, I actually preferred peanuts in the shell and "raw" cashews (I did know that those were called "raw"--but they were likely heated somewhat by the sun and steaming to detoxify and remove the shells http://www.cashewmachines.com/Documents/CASHEWNUT%20PROCESSING%20AN%20OVERVIEW.pdf, though there allegedly are "truly raw" sun-dried cashews - http://www.rawlife.com/store/Truly_Raw_Indonesian_Cashews-_16oz.html) to the roasted versions. My mother used to buy them at the food coop. I used to eat a ton of both of those. I do vaguely remember my mother saying I shouldn't eat too many of the "raw" cashews at one sitting (I think because she thought they might give me the runs) with me telling her something like, "But Mom, I already ate most of one of the bags of raw cashews yesterday with no problems," and her being mildly surprised. This has been a fun trip down memory lane! (Assuming my unreliable memory is relatively on course.) :)

I may try so-called "raw" peanuts again. My other experiments with legumes that are "edible raw" (jicama and the cassia fistula that's popular with Instinctos) did not produce any benefits or enjoyment. If "raw" peanuts don't work out for me this time, at least I'll have advanced the cause of science! ;)

-----Sidebar:
a
"Peanuts have many uses. They can be eaten raw...." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut)

"Raw peanuts can be purchased at most health-food and grocery stores throughout the United States." (How to Shell Raw Peanuts | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_5731656_shell-raw-peanuts.html#ixzz1p4JfMv7K)

/sidebar-------

RA: Potatoes produce acrylamides....

I too am suspicious of the potatoes sold in the USA, not only because I don't fare well on them (even in commonly recommended low-acrylamide, boiled form) and they require cooking or other processing like soaking and/or fermenting (this fermented potatoes dish comes from an 1833 recipe -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0SjRvTBgO4), but also because they are significantly different from and not closely related to the tubers that hunter gatherers and chimps eat in Africa, and the precautionary principle would seem to suggest that we shouldn't assume that they're OK just because they're all the rage in some Paleo/ancestral diet circles these days. 

That said, it's also possible that certain amounts of acrylamides and other toxins might have hormetic effects http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/02/polyphenols-hormesis-and-disease-part.html. For example, the highly touted resveratrol  is a plant chemical that acts as a profungicide and there is evidence that it works via hormetic toxicity http://www.belleonline.com/newsletters/volume16/vol16-2.pdf. And believe it or not, there is research suggesting that acrylamides may indeed have certain hormetic effects (Daniel P. Hayes, Nutritional Hormesis and Aging, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836150/). So I haven't ruled out the possibility that certain amounts of cooked potatoes might be beneficial within an otherwise healthy diet. What those amounts might be, how often, and for how long, I have no idea. Thus, I err on the side of relative caution and only eat potatoes on occasion when dining out, but never stock them.