Paleo talks about anti-nutrients in neolithic foods a lot. And that's a conversation worth having of course. But what about all the anti-nutrients and allergnic issues in regard to paleo foods? Why do they get a free-pass?
You should differentiate between intolerances, which are things you simply cannot digest, and allergies, which have no proven genetic origins.
As it turns out, allergies are very environmental, and can appear or disappear depending on lots of factors. Intolerances on the other hand are pretty much for life (of course there's a difference between what your body can digest as a kid and as an adult, lactose being one example).
Paleo will deal with intolerances. Its up to you I guess to figure out your allergies and take these foods out as well.
Some good answers here...however some of you say that being sensitive to paleo foods must be due to things in our modern environment which make SOME folks abnormally hyper-sensitive to certain paleo foods. For instance, screwed up gut bacteria perhaps is what makes SOME have bad reactions to fish, shellfish, etc.
Well I think that's a great theory, and very possibly true.
But...why are you failing to apply this same logic to neolithic foods? That's the whole point I'm trying to make here. We go into excuse making mode for why PALEO foods like cabbage, fish, nuts, spinach, etc can be an issue for some, but when neolithic foods cause SOME folks issues, then it must because...well because those are evil neolithic foods of course.
So why can't it be that SOME folks respond badly to certain neolithic foods because of bad gut bacteria as well? Just as you're saying is the case when SOME respond poorly to paleo foods.
Wazz up with the double standard and logical inconsistencies here?
Have you considered that the modern way of consuming those foods might be a big part of the problem? Grains, nuts, legumes and even most vegetables were at one time, soaked, sprouted, fermented or otherwise perpared to minimize toxins and antinutrients. Now, people leave food preparation to large corporations who don't use these methods because they are focused on profits.
The old ways of processing foods are almost forgotten (or we wouldn't be having this discussion) ;)
Fish with mercury
Humans did that. Humans fucked up fish. But no matter, you don't absorb the mercury if your gut is in good shape.
Meat with potentially excess iron for men and pre-menopausal females
Only an issue for those with Hemochromatosis or if you're not getting a mineral-rich diet. Many minerals compete for absorption and so a mineral-rich diet will keep iron in check.
They "are out to kill us"? Hmm.. ok.
I think that you're conflating a whole slew of things via simplification; it also ignores several others that affect causality (like the role humans have played in changing foods, the environment, and themselves).
For starters, I don't think that fish developed the ability to hold excess mercury in their bodies to dissuade predators from eating them. Say, as opposed to some plants' chemical weapons.
Yes, some plants may have developed chemical weapons to ensure the survivability of their offspring (i.e. seeds). Others may have added both protections and incentives (like fructose) to get an edge.
However, how have we affected the foods themselves?
How much access to these foods (and chemicals) would we have had in the past? what of seasonality?
How much more do we eat?
How have our eating habits and practices affected our ability to process / handle food (including auto-immune / allergic reactions) or even our nutrition profile (e.g. effect of avoiding organs)? individually, collectively, over time?
How have we affected the environment and this in turn affected the profiles of food (everything from soil mineral depletion to pollution)?
etc. etc. etc.
Best is to tackle each one of those items individually, instead of lumping them all together and generalizing a question.
Soaking and Sprouting Nuts and Seeds 2 Answers
Potatoes: Eat the skin, or no? 7 Answers
Anti-Nutrients - Can we be more specific 4 Answers