From: cryofan@mylinuxisp.com
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 11:08:27 MDT
gts <gts_2000@yahoo.com> said:
> 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.
>
>
I basically agree. Or best diet would be based to a large extent on animal
protein, perhaps primarly fish and shellfish, and some game meat (deer etc).
Add some wild grains, some greens, some fruit, some tubers, etc.
BTW, you do know that you are obsessed with this topic, right?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 11:17:22 MDT