From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 09:47:07 MDT
Damien Sullivan wrote:
> So, what do researchers *besides* Cordain think? Are you
> citing a consensus, or allying yourself with one side of a polarized
> academic debate?
I've taken a side in the debate, for sure. However in my mind the debate is
over, except with respect to debating fringe-thinkers who still believe our
natural diet is nearly or completely vegetarian.
Those who would argue that we are genetically adapted to a *grain* based
diet are in my mind beyond the fringe and hardly worth the trouble of
debating. Some people will believe anything. :-)
I've never seen any credible evidence that prehistoric cultures subsisted on
less than ~30% animal based food sources. My own estimate as an amateur
researcher is perhaps a bit lower than Cordain's. In some of Cordain's
papers, such as the one I quoted here, he estimates as much 75% of calories
from animal sources. I would guess about 45% to 50% based on the
preponderance of the evidence I've seen from all authors and researchers.
But then Cordain is far more qualified than me and most other authors to
make such estimations. Dr. Cordain has made it is his life project to
understand paleolithic diets.
The other primary authority is Eaton, who in fact first wrote about the
health benefits of animal-based paleolithic diets in a major medical
journal. He was the pioneer researcher in the field. I don't recall his
estimate of the percentage of calories from animal sources in paleolithic
times but it is in line with Cordain's. In fact they've published some
articles together on the subject.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 09:54:04 MDT