> The point is not to argue for a blanket acceptance > of legumes as > paleo foods, but to argue against a blanket > rejection of them. > Stahl and her commentators recognize that the > edibility of > legumes must be considered on a case by case basis, > not > generically, and that the mere presence of > antinutrients does not > make a food inedible for humans or other primates. Good points, Todd. I'd also like to add that some of the "verboten" foods, although not likely to be preferred, were at least available for emergency situations (flood, drought, etc). In fact, the first attempts at cultivation might have been to develop an emergency surplus of sorts. Grains and legumes can keep for years in the right environment. On the other hand, in times of plenty, I'm sure nobody would even think of eating many of those foods. I know I wouldn't (hate beans, used bread as a "meat holder" only, potatoes are booooring). Imagine being in the savannah and you have a choice - digging up roots, or spearing fish (or whatever). I think most of us on this list would opt for the latter - the "fun" activity rather than the tedious one. Once again (in a rather roundabout way), we return to the opposing concepts - surviving vs. thriving. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/