From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 11:06:22 MDT
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, gts wrote:
> We know what they did *not* eat and that is the primary determinant of the
> paleodiet. We know they did not eat dairy, grains or legumes in any
> significant quantity. We also know they *did* eat meat.
How do you know what they did not eat? I hope you aren't thinking they
didn't have the "technology"... eating grains or legumes requires nothing
Paleo people couldn't have done (not the dairy, though).
> I do not disagree with this nor does it any way contradict paleodiet theory.
> The mesolithic was a short stage between the paleolithic and the neolithic.
> For millions of years prior, grains and legumes were not significant in the
> diet.
Short is a relative term. But I see no reason to cut the Mesolithic off in
this regard - since it was mainly marked by improvement in hunting (bows
and arrows, dogs). Again, earlier people all the way back could have eaten
grains and legumes. All the more so where hunting was more difficult and
less rewarding (as became the case again in the proto-Neolithic Near East,
this time because of the decline of the megafaunua).
> Archeological evidence of human remains show that paleo peoples were
> healthier than their neolithic progeny. This was discussed previously in the
> thread about diet and evolution.
What evidence are you looking at? I must have missed all the references
in the previous part of the thread. Everything I have seen points in the
exact opposite direction.
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 11:16:23 MDT