It make sens to me that the suspicion on beans is only for the dry seeds of
leguminous  plants .
i don't see any reason to condemn the fresh and immature seeds of the same
plants.
i personally eat sprouted , chickpeas ...  and fresh seeds of peas lentils
and chickpeas. but don't have any attraction for beans in any form ( green
or mature sprouted),

i don't even see any reason to condemn grains or anything . by eating food
in its raw state the sorting out is done by itself. I just can't eat in
quantity grains, pulses they are a very minor part of my diet.
For sure because we have been overeating for so long it doesn't hurt to
totally go without for a while.
i still condemn wheat per se because of its overselected nature that brought
it so far from its ancestors. And because in the 1st part of my life i ate
it so much it can only be good to go without.

jean-claude

>> I had a question on beans. I understand they are not
>> considered paleo but I am wondering why this would
>> be for green beans etc. You can eat them raw, naked
>> with a big stick. Also how about peas? Thanks!
>>
>> Melissa
>
>Y'know, I asked almost the exact same question once,
>and I really didn't get a straight answer. What I'd
>really like to know is whether it is beans that are
>not paleo, or is it all legumes in general. Legumes
>cover a very large family of foods, and beans are
>merely a subset (in fact, there are a number of
>different categories of beans as well, but let's not
>get into that right now).
>
>Personally, I would have to include green beans and
>peas in the "maybe" category since both can be, and
>are quite often, eaten in the raw state. So, if they
>are verboten because they are legumes, then the
>opinion must be that all legumes are non-paleo.
>However, if they are verboten because they are simply
>"called" beans, then there is an obvious problem with
>terminology.
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
>http://messenger.yahoo.com