On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Rob Street wrote:
> I have several questions for the veterans.
There really should be a mailable FAQ for this list.
> Are cashews paleo? I was told they are toxic before processing. Are
> there any "nuts" other than peanuts that are not paleo?
My understanding is that it is the husks of the cashews that are
toxic, not the raw cashews themselves. Whether this means that
they cannot be eaten without technology is unknown to me. That
is, even though processing large volumes of cashews for the
market is a high-tech process, I don't know whether people can
safely harvest small amounts for their own use without a lot of
technology. I gather they have been eaten in India for a long
time.
The "edible raw" criterion is supposed to be a marker for what
prehistoric humans *could* have eaten and what they have
therefore had sufficient time to adapt to. But it's an imperfect
marker. Some foods that are edible raw may nevertheless be foods
that humans have not had a lot of time to adapt to. All foods
originating in the Americas, for example, are foods that humans
have not had that much exposure to, especially humans of European
descent. Thus, even though tomatoes are edible raw, they entered
the human food supply only recently and therefore should not be
considered paleo.
Furthermore, certain legumes such as lentils are edible after
soaking for some hours. Soaking is a techology that is easily at
the "sharp stick" level.
> What determines whether or not a particular oil is paleo?
Two opinions: (1) If the food from which the oil is obtained is
edible raw, then the oil is paleo. (2) If the oil itself is
obtainable with paleolithic technology, then the oil is paleo.
The second opinion is more restrictive than the first. Walnuts
are edible raw, so walnut oil should be okay, according to the
first opinion. On the other hand, prehistoric humans would not
have been able to extract walnut oil from the nuts, so walnut oil
would be an "unnaturally concentrated" substance, according to
the second opinion. The same would be true of all refined oils,
including olive oil, coconut oil, etc., since these oils require
presses for their extraction.
Which opinion is correct? There is some inconsistency about the
principles involved. I think most paleodieters go by (1) when it
comes to oils, but one often hears opinion (2) invoked with
respect to other food components, such as salt and sugar. That
is salt and sugar tend to be rejected not because they were
unavailable to prehistoric humans -- clearly they *were*
available -- but because adding them to recipes unnaturally
concentrates them. Thus we have the paradox that unnatural
concentration matters when it comes to salt and sugar but not
oils.
> What is it about curing that make meats non-paleo? I have yet to find
> uncured bacon - only bacon without nitrates.
It's the salt and sugar issue.
> Does anyone know how to make bacon? ( uncured )
Actually, I think "uncured bacon" is a contradiction in terms, at
least according to my dictionary. If it's not cured, it's not
bacon. You can slice up some pork belly, as Don Wiss suggested,
but it won't taste like bacon, because it isn't bacon.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
