/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>6352397

The legume thing is one of the funnier things about paleo. Due to the nature of their diet, they have to make an excuse for why legumes are bad for you or else the paleo concept falls apart, so their theory is that the "lectins" and other anti-nutrients in legumes make them poisonous, even though cooking destroys any danger and leaves you instead with some of the most nutritious foods around.

White potatoes are a bit shit though, yeah. Sweet potatoes are way better, and I've heard paleo allows those, but maybe in limited amounts

>>6116090

Okay, so where's the data that proves this theory you have that cooked legumes will cause anything but lower risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, alzheimer's, cancer, etc?

The difference between the theories people who aren't part of the greater medical community have about why legumes could be bad and the theories of the world's top scientists about why eggs can be bad is that there's no real evidence of beans being bad but plenty of evidence against eggs. This is why when the World Health Organization for example gives diet guidelines, it looks like this

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/diet/en/

>increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, and legumes, whole grains and nuts

Not "increase consumption of eggs," which is a phrase you would only hear coming from the egg industry itself

>>6093167

>wellnessmama.com

>that feel trying to reason with your paleo friend