Ray Audette wrote:
> Domestic cows are much more similar to their wild counterparts than
> legumes are.  They also contain less fat than mammouths, mastodons.
> ground sloths and other Pleistocene animals we ate to death in the late
> Paleolithic era a mere 350 generations ago.

But are the modern legumes more different in ways we know to be
nutritionally relevant? I can see that cows are maybe not genetically
so distant from wild herd animals, but the fact that their fat contains
seven times more SFAs, and five times less PUFAs, and probably less
MUFAs, is a difference we know to be of great nutritional relevance.
(Forgive me if I'm off on the figures: they come from Eaton, if memory
serves.)

I also wonder how much of a threat modern legumes (those edible raw)
pose, given that paleo HGs apparently (again, according to Eaton)
consumed an extraordinary diversity of plant types. I would think that
we had developed some kind of tolerance for small-to-moderate amounts
of unfamiliar non-toxic plant foods. I find it more believable that
grains and legumes are threatening in the absurd quantities that
agricultural humans tend to consume them.