On Jun 28, 2004, at 2:50 pm, Todd Moody wrote:
> If we say, then, that a potato is a low-quality food item mainly
> because
> it is a highly concentrated carbohydrate (but no more highly
> concentrated than a banana), then indeed we should welcome a lower-carb
> potato.

I can't help but feel that this attitude is similar to wanting to breed
a gluten-free wheat grain, a lectin-free peanut or a
phyto-oestrogen-free soy bean.  If we did not evolve to eat a plant for
even one specific reason, that means we are unprepared for *all* of its
contents.

> Starches, such as found in tubers, are concentrated sources of energy,
> and it is obvious that hunter-gatherers would attempt to find and make
> use of them whenever possible.

I will dare to say that it is quite possible we did eat raw tubers in
some amount.  I suspect that if we didn't, they would be a common
allergen, seeing how widely eaten they are.  (Someone with more
biological knowledge may be able to pick me up on this.)  However, we
definitely did no evolve eating baked potatoes, chips, crisps or any
other such junk.  And when did you last see someone eat a raw potato?

My other thought is that I always thought that potatoes were "new
world".  Does anyone know what edible tubers are native to Africa and
Eurasia?

> Here's an experiment: get
> a raw sweet potato or yam and try to eat it.  You can do it but it's
> pretty chewy and tiresome and doesn't taste very good.  Now take
> another
> one and smack the hell out of it with a tenderizing mallet (or, if you
> like authenticity, use a rock, with the yam pressed between leaves to
> keep pieces from flying all over).  Smash it to a soft pulp; it doesn't
> take long.  Then taste the pulp and see if you don't notice the
> increased sweetness.  This is stone age food processing technology.

An experiment I would like to see even more is to measure the glycemic
load of such a smashed up-tuber.

Ashley