That brings up an interesting question:  If we define paleo foods as edible
raw then why do we fuss over the cooking aspect so much?  I mean if paleo
people used fire to cook and I believe they did, then why would edible raw
even have any meaning?  Should we not simply seek to find out what they ate?

Jim Cales - [log in to unmask] - ICQ UIN 1492607
Columbia, Missouri USA  65203 - (573)875-5581 - MSN:[log in to unmask]
http://www.ComputerGuruForHire.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "S C" <[log in to unmask]>
> What rule do you use to decide if a food is "paleo"?  I know you consider
> starchy tubers to be okay (or some of them, anyway).  You think that some
> legumes are okay (for example, peanuts and snap peas).  Where do you draw
the
> line?  Do you define a food as paleo if it can be eaten raw?  Is that your
> touchstone?
> What about the fact that fire was available for most--if not all--of the
> paleolithic period?  Do you think that paleo people cooked any of their
> food--for example, meat?