Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Mesquite legumes are primal/paleo? page

  1. #1
    Sonoran hotdog's Avatar
    Sonoran hotdog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    248

    Mesquite legumes are primal/paleo?

    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    I live in the Sonoran desert, where humans have left traces going back 11,000+ years (mammoth kill site). Most of the trees that grow here are actually big legumes: Mesquite, Palo Verde, Ironwood, Acacia all produce pods with "beans" and are part of the Fabaceae family. These legumes were a major source of calories for the indigenous peoples. From that perspective I have to put them in the paleo/primal bucket.

    Mesquite in particular is ubiquitous in the Sonoran desert. The pod is actually the more edible part, as the "beans" are harder than rocks. Most modern harvesters put them through a mill which separates out the beans and tough fibers, and grinds the dried pods into a very nutritious flour.

    I guess where I am going with this is Mark categorically puts legumes into the non-primal category, as from his perspective they were not part of the paleolithic human diet, yet they very much were in this part of the world.

    On the other hand mesquite flour is very high in carbs. One cannot eat too much of this stuff and maintain a low-carb diet.

    In general "Sonoran Grok" could have had a very high carb diet. Cactus fruit and agave were major calorie sources. There was not an abundance of large game, though it is seems that indigenous folks hung out near rivers where the prevalence of large mammals was higher than the surrounding territory.

    Thoughts? Are paleo thinkers ignoring how people likely lived in this part of the world?

  2. #2
    excursivey's Avatar
    excursivey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    681
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonoran hotdog View Post
    I live in the Sonoran desert, where humans have left traces going back 11,000+ years (mammoth kill site). Most of the trees that grow here are actually big legumes: Mesquite, Palo Verde, Ironwood, Acacia all produce pods with "beans" and are part of the Fabaceae family. These legumes were a major source of calories for the indigenous peoples. From that perspective I have to put them in the paleo/primal bucket.

    Mesquite in particular is ubiquitous in the Sonoran desert. The pod is actually the more edible part, as the "beans" are harder than rocks. Most modern harvesters put them through a mill which separates out the beans and tough fibers, and grinds the dried pods into a very nutritious flour.

    I guess where I am going with this is Mark categorically puts legumes into the non-primal category, as from his perspective they were not part of the paleolithic human diet, yet they very much were in this part of the world.

    On the other hand mesquite flour is very high in carbs. One cannot eat too much of this stuff and maintain a low-carb diet.

    In general "Sonoran Grok" could have had a very high carb diet. Cactus fruit and agave were major calorie sources. There was not an abundance of large game, though it is seems that indigenous folks hung out near rivers where the prevalence of large mammals was higher than the surrounding territory.

    Thoughts? Are paleo thinkers ignoring how people likely lived in this part of the world?
    Had a discussion about this with somebody the other day... Hello from another Tucson Grok-ette...
    Breathe. Move forward.

    I just eat what I want...

  3. #3
    EagleRiverDee's Avatar
    EagleRiverDee is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Posts
    673
    I think that omitting grains in large quantities is consistent with how our paleolithic ancestors likely lived because gathering grain would have been time consuming so if the did gather it they weren't eating a lot of it. On the flip side, I think that Primal and Paleo diets omitting all legumes, all grains, and tubers such as potatoes is unrealistic. Surely paleolithic man ate what they could find in their immediate area. If, in your area, legumes is what they would have found, then I can't help but think it likely became a dietary staple.
    High Weight: 225
    Weight at start of Primal: 189
    Current Weight: 174
    Goal Weight: 130

    Primal Start Date: 11/26/2012

  4. #4
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,728
    Indigenous and traditional diets do not equal paleo/primal. Are you guessing that paleolithic peoples made these legumes a part of their diet simply because these trees exist there today or are you basing this on some sort of evidence? Just curious.

    It's a far site better than refined grocery product from your bizillion dollar corporate office though.

    Legumes could be made edible and even healthy with proper preparation. Its just that meat is a far better choice for many reasons.

    So in terms of paleo/primal..... not they are not. But if you wish to include them WAPF is an excellent resource.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 09-19-2013 at 12:14 PM.

  5. #5
    Sonoran hotdog's Avatar
    Sonoran hotdog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Indigenous and traditional diets do not equal paleo/primal. Are you guessing that paleolithic peoples made these legumes a part of their diet simply because these trees exist there today or are you basing this on some sort of evidence? Just curious.
    Great question. There is good evidence of indigenous peoples consuming mesquite, and I have seen articles mentioning animals consuming them:

    "During the Ice Ages, which lasted from about 1.8 million to some 10,000 years ago, the mesquites “coevolved with large herbivores, such as mastodons and ground sloths, which ate the pods and then dispersed them widely in their feces

    It would be reasonable that paleolithic peoples also consumed them, but I am not aware of any concrete proof. They are available in such abundance in this part of the world, that there was no need for "agriculture" to be invented by humans for mesquite to become a major food source.

    I have to rake up bushels of them in my yard every summer, so I am not in need of a source. If one ignores processing costs, they are free.

  6. #6
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,386
    Sounds like you could make the same argument for eating grass. Large herbivores have been eating it for millions of years. Why shouldn't we?

  7. #7
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    I'm not up on my paleo diet "history," but I believe the diet sprung forth from the observation that modern hunter gatherers tend not to eat a lot of grains, legumes or dairy, so that became the standard exclusion list. Aside from that, the general argument against legumes is they contain lectins or are completely inedible and useless unless soaked or sprouted (which I don't think is true). Or they'll cite concerns about autoimmunity or a lack of nutrient density. Stick around long enough and you'll feel like you're on the Nutrient Density Diet.

    I think legumes are fine, personally, and I don't think Mark Sisson will drown you in the Pacific for eating them. There's a thread buried somewhere on this forum called something like "Whole grains in small measures are perfectly paleo" that you might enjoy reading.

    And of course there's another major reason legumes are forbidden, which you've already touched on: too many carbs. Maybe legumes will be paleo in 2016. We've spent the last few years fighting about sweet potatoes--and white potatoes more recently--so it might be a while
    Last edited by Timthetaco; 09-19-2013 at 02:53 PM.

  8. #8
    Sonoran hotdog's Avatar
    Sonoran hotdog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Sounds like you could make the same argument for eating grass. Large herbivores have been eating it for millions of years. Why shouldn't we?
    Errrr....maybe because the indigenous peoples have been eating mesquite for 1000's of years and not grass?

  9. #9
    Sonoran hotdog's Avatar
    Sonoran hotdog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    ...modern hunter gatherers tend not to eat a lot of grains, legumes or dairy, so that became the standard exclusion list...
    Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'll take this back to the point I was originally trying to make (perhaps not as clearly as I could have), that the observations of hunter-gatherers may have not taken fully into account those residing in this part of the world where legumes grow wild with unbelievable abundance and without the need for agriculture.

    Humans are incredibly resourceful omnivores - the indigenous folk consumed large quantities of cholla cactus buds for the calcium (though they didn't know that), as milk was not a factor in their diet. It would be odd that stone age humans of the desert southwest would not have availed themselves of the huge quantities of calories available from mesquite.

  10. #10
    Sonoran hotdog's Avatar
    Sonoran hotdog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by EagleRiverDee View Post
    Surely paleolithic man ate what they could find in their immediate area. If, in your area, legumes is what they would have found, then I can't help but think it likely became a dietary staple.
    Well said.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •