Richard of "Free the Animal" is in the middle of a series of posts about this macadamia/coconut bread he's been making. He said he draws the "reenactment" line between meal-type items and sweets. So something like bread is OK, but not a cupcake.
So let's pretend for a second that there wasn't any psyllium husk in the bread, so that the ingredients are totally primal.
Then the problem is just that it's bread? Should we not make sandwiches with lettuce, mushroom, or bell pepper for "bread"? What makes one approximation worse than the other?
Cauliflower rice isn't rice, and zucchini noodles aren't really noodles. But paleo bread really is a bread I think. Does the problem lie somewhere in there? And what about it, if it's there, is actually problematic? (seriously)
exactly my thoughts. I have 'noodles' all the time, they are just made of zucchini. If the psyllium is the powder version I don't know how it isn't primal.
The good point you've made is that names and labels are stupid.
Zucchini noodles aren't noodles at all. They're a food cut into a shape to approximate an experience of a non-food (pasta).
Same goes for sliced peppers and mushrooms used to make a "sandwich." Those aren't actually breads in any way. They're a piece of a plant and a fungus, respectively, cut into a slice. Does cutting something into a slice render it "processed?" Does churning cream turning it into butter render it "processed?"
Where exactly to draw the line is debatable.
Drying and milling coconut flesh (or doing whatever it is that's done to make coconut flour), separating eggs, adding psyllium and baking soda, and whatever else, then mixing, baking, slicing, and bagging pretty clearly renders something a "product" rather than a food item.
Which side of the line that falls on isn't so debateable. Where's the line exactly? I'm not going to try to make up a rule. I know that in my eyes it definitely somewhere in between cutting a pepper into slices and baking a pseudobread.
In other words, a bakery product that's an approximation of bread isn't primal by any but the loosest of definitions. It probably isn't actually "bread" by any but the loosest of definitions either. I would contend that it's neither primal nor bread.
It may very well be the least harmful bread anybody's thought of. And it may fit well within the confines of how you choose to eat. But it's a pretty heavily manufactured product, not anything your paleolithic ancestors might have recognized as "food."
Richard Nikoley doesn't claim to be primal any more, if I remember correctly. Or paleo or whatever. I applaud him for that decision. He was telling his readers where he draws his personal line of what's appropriate to eat.
I totally agree. It's hard to pin to pin the source of discomfort about it on any one thing, too -- I mean take cheese, for example. You can have quality ingredients, yet there's lots of processing, but the effort and chemistry that goes into making it is fascinating.
I think a lot of it is just a 'spirit of primal' thing. Food shouldn't be so industrialized. I don't know how else people can defend the stance that paleo baking at home is ok but buying paleo bread is not (a stance that has been taken in similar threads). And I think that's right. But only up to a point. Once people start speculating about what Grok did, it starts to sound stupid. It's not like there's something inherently wrong with baking, but it would be a bitch to make your coconut flour. (But so what?)
Some antagonism toward it also comes, I think, from an attitude of 'I don't think that's paleo, and don't make us all look like jackasses by eating bread and calling it paleo.'
I was ready to say that it's definitely on the wrong side of the line, but after my rambling, not so sure. I mean it's pretty damn innocuous. I know exactly what's in it. I think the commercial, mass-produced part plays in big time... ex., people might support the paleo baker lady at their local farmer's market. But I've definitely rambled now...
Personally, I believe that pure "primal" means "natural". There are lots of things that are taken overboard in both directions. I see people spout off that "gluten free" grains are "bad" because they're "still grains", yet something like Buckwheat isn't wheat at all, or a grain, or a grass. Rather, it's a flower. In other words, people talk out of their asses a lot regurgitating 3rd hand information they read one time off of a message board.
You have you ask yourself why you want to eat something over whether or not that product is "primal" or "paleo". If you're seeking coconut bread because you can't live without bread, then you're substituting one piece of crap for another, especially if it becomes a staple. If you're just looking for options to change things up, then go for it from time to time. It can fall in the range of your 80/20 and, well, blah blah blah.
Just be honest with yourself when it comes to substitutes for other foods. A franken food is often worse than the "real" thing.
It's $8.00 per loaf. I'd put makeup on my ass and walk on my hands before I'd pay $8.00 for a loaf of bread.
I understand that people cringe when seeing paleo go the way of atkins - but I think what the OP is asking for is a nutritional/biochemical reason that coconut bread would not be paleo. Combining otherwise paleo foods in a paleo quantity and cooking them - even if you call it bread- doesn't necessarily make it unhealthy. If you mash up a banana with an egg, cook it, and call it a pancake it is no different than eating a banana and an egg for breakfast.
That being said, I have read that coconut flour contains high levels of lectins so I avoid it. I highly doubt it would be a problem in small quantities, but as a dietary staple I would be wary. I would also be suspicious of anti-nutrients in psyllium.
Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )