Statins (OT)

[John Williamson]

Light, trace minerals, CO2 and H2O, just as they do now.

Before that, life metabolised Sulphur compounds, and some still does.

[John Williamson]

Yeah, it's rather poisonous until the toxins are destroyed by heat, usually by boiling it for a long time.

"Like other roots and tubers, cassava contains antinutritional factors and toxins. It must be properly prepared before consumption. Improper preparation of cassava can leave enough residual cyanide to cause acute cyanide intoxication and goiters, and may even cause ataxia or partial paralysis. Nevertheless, farmers often prefer the bitter varieties because they deter pests, animals, and thieves. The more-toxic varieties of cassava are a fall-back resource (a "food security crop") in times of famine in some places."

Even potatoes aren't good for you unless they're cooked, and any green parts are fairly toxic. On the other hand, *most* meat and milk can safely be consumed raw, which is one reason we started livestock farming. The animals convert toxic and non-nutritious vegetation into food for us. Meat which can't safely be eaten raw are meats included in the Kosher and other prohibitions. The Rabbis knew what was safe in the days before proper hygiene and refrigeration.

[John Williamson]

Yes, a *lot* of vegetable food products are toxic in their raw, unprocessed state.

[The Natural Philosopher]

JFGI

[Andy Champ]

Hmm. Reading the article:

"From a purely scientific point of view, chemical analysis of the group O antigen"

There is no antigen. O is when you don't have one.

As far as I can gather he has no scientific qualifications. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does make me very careful about him as a source.

Andy

[Andy Champ]

Manganese oxide, IIRC.

Vegetation (photosynthesis) came _much_ later, and only after that was there a chance for anything to be a herbivore.

Andy

[Terry Fields]

Yes, you're quite right. I did note it was a cranky food web site... but the article seemed well-written, and I can't easily find a refutation of the claim that AB group came about less than a thousand years ago.

[polygonum]

article seemed well-written, and I can't

thousand years ago.

Although the site name makes me shudder, the article and comments might be of interest:

[Andy Champ]

The site name makes me nervous too :) But it links to this:

It's very technical, but it indicates that the ABO groups are pre-human. Obviously this doesn't agree with any site that thinks the Bible is literal truth, and I don't think sits well with Adamo's diet theories. It's also been cited by 106 other authors.

I then googled for "ABO evolution primate" which led me to this more readable article

"The A, B and O blood types in people evolved at least 20 million years ago in a common ancestor of humans and other primates, new research suggests."

"Exactly why evolution would favor a mix of blood types in so many species is a mystery. Depending on blood type, people are more or less susceptible to particular pathogens. Type O people, for example, are more susceptible to cholera and plague, while people with type A are more susceptible to smallpox. Blood group diversity may have been maintained for so long because each version was immunologically advantageous in certain times and places."

And also this recent one

"These results demonstrate that the ABO polymorhpism is a trans-species polymorphism aming distantly related species and has remained under balancing selection for tens of millions of years - to date, the only such example in Hominoids and Old World Monkeys outside of the Major Histocompatibility Complex"

If A and B are around in the same population then AB will be. I'm not going to comment further on Adamo, except to say that his theories do not seem to agree with scientific consensus.

Andy

[Terry Fields]

Many thanks for that interesting reference despite the gloomy title - it was a fascinating read.

It's slightly surprising that the evolution of blood groups is so little known, and little research seems to have been carried out in recent years using modern techniques. Even more surprising is the claim that group O developed after A and B (and possibly AB!). I had thought that group O was associated with the emergence of humans in the Great Rift Valley, perhaps this goes some way to refuting that in some way.

I'm especially interested in group B because that's what I have - perhaps some ancestor was a Mongolian warrior; who knows?

I've taken a pdf of that site for future reference.

[polygonum]

I don't think he says much about the A2 group... :-)

[polygonum]

Someone else ate some Amanita...

[Frank Erskine]

It's all a bit worrying really. I eat loads of (bought) mushrooms but it seems that it might be all too easy for growers to make a "minor" mistake. Probably 40+ years ago I suffered some sort of poisoning from (most likely) mushrooms, whence my face puffed up and swallowing was difficult. The emergency quack seemed to resolve it with antibiotics. I stayed off mushrooms (with difficulty) for a few years.

[Martin Brown]

The scary thing is that it would have tasted excellent at the time.

Not really the conditions for growing them are different. The risk is in eating collected wild mushrooms of slightly dodgy or DIY provenance. I always liked the way in France the pharmacists would ID them for you.

It always struck me as a slightly interesting thing as they were not going to eat them but will check collected ones for a small fee.

May not have been the mushrooms fault if antibiotics cured it.

[polygonum]

I am generally not keen on eating any form of mushroom. The more I became interested in finding and photographing them, the less I wanted to eat them! Especially knowing the identification issues. And that all too often, a species that has been regarded as safe forever is suddenly reclassified as dodgy or frankly dangerous. Plus there is very little known about accumulation of toxins, and possibly increasing sensitivity when a species is eaten repeatedly.

Then people go and eat them raw without due consideration of the environment in which they grew and the likelihood of bacterial issues.

There are a few that are pretty much unmistakable and are extremely widely eaten - I might try some of them. E.g. Blewits when of exactly the right colour.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I cant off hand think of a single example of that.

I think there is considerable knowledge actually

well deary me. Townies experiencing the countryside and treating it like Tescos. they deserve to get ill.

Definitely one I _wouldn't_ try.

The absolute beginners pick is the shaggy ink cap. Nothing else looks remotely like it and if cooked within 20 mins (or simply nibbled raw) its delicious.

Another one is the giant puff ball. Not really that amusing, but sliced and fried in bacon fat it improves.

After that just about any agaric that looks white on top with pinky brown gills is safe apart from the yellow stainer, and that wont kill you.

Morels, if you can find em, are distinctive and delicious.

Shaggy parasols are fairly distinctive too.

Really there are three sorts of fungus. Those that are distinctive and safe, those that are lethal and you have better know them, and a vast array in between that will either give you a bad turn or taste either revolting or not at all. For example I've eaten fairy ring mushrooms but there isnt really anything TO eat. Waste of time a sniff of flavour and that's it. I've eaten pluteus, but that as a mushy tasteless load of earthiness. Same foes for st gerofgres mushroom and something esle we identified as being edible. Didn't die, but not really worth eatimg IMHO.

Wood mushrooms field mushrooms and horse mushrooms are what I tend to try and find, and shaggy caps.

[Martin Brown]

These days ultra trace analysis can find almost anything. Though it is easier if a specimen is available to examine uncooked.

Just don't consume it with alcohol as it is allegedly a species that is a source of coprine the basis of antabuse.

Wiki says that it doesn't contain coprine but my books say it does. You pays your money and takes your choice when harvesting "free" food.

They are really very impressive things. Taste isn't bad for a fresh one. More of a problem is size - you get bored with it after a while.

And definitely need to be cooked (BTW there is one toxic false morel). I find them inclined to cause slightly hallucinogenic dreams YMMV.

A lot are just not good to eat but not very poisonous. The really nasty ones are those that are actually deadly poisonous, but look like an edible one to a casual observer *and* taste great. Amanitas tick all the boxes (and are also responsible for the flying reindeer legends).

Highly toxic ones that taste awful tend not to get eaten by accident.

Until quite recently there were wild chanterelles around here but someone took away the fallen dead host tree for firewood :(