From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 10:04:28 MDT
Barbara Lamar wrote:
> gts wrote:
>
>> Strange thing about tomatoes: they are not truly natural
>> (Paleolithic) fruits.
> I believe you're misinterpreting the idea behind the
> "Paleolithic Diet."
Not sure how you could say this, Barbara. Paleo diets were what they were. I
didn't invent them. And tomatoes were not a part of them anywhere on earth.
> The fact that a particular plant family
> or genus did or did not exist in Africa or Europe during the
> time pre-humans and humans were evolving into our present
> form implies little about whether or not that species is
> healthy to eat.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't eat your tomatoes. The benefits of
tomatoes probably outweigh the costs, especially if eaten in the company of
other antioxidant rich foods which serve to prevent excitoxicity.
I am however stating flatly that they were not part of the paleolithic diet.
Paleo purists should not eat them.
> Another well-known member of the Solanaceae family (also,
> interestingly, known as the Nightshade family), Atropa
> belladonna (deadly nightshade), was apprently around in
> abundance when the human species was new, but that certainly
> does not mean you'd want to cook up a mess of the fruit for dinner.
Yes of course not. I'm sure our prehistoric ancestors figured that much out
quite quickly. I imagine that two of the first words ever spoken were
"edible" and "inedible."
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 10:11:43 MDT