On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:14:41 +0100, Alison Ashwell
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Yes, it is the assumed age of death but is likely to be wrong going by
>the fact that the healthy bones of the Spitalfields bodies were assumed
>to be younger at death than they actually were.

This is the question.
The average paleo age is not only from bones, but also from
different sources. E.g. if many die between 20 and 30 of infection,
animal attack or parasites, the age would also be very low.
And long term diseases like osteoporosis wouldn't have had the chance to
show up.

>> If you reinterpret all scientific studies as to be wrong in age
>>estimations
>> you're moving on a thin ice for safety against osteoporisis (and other
>> diseases).
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I wanted to say,  you can't feel safe from osteoporosis,
just because paleo bones *could be* older as assumed.

It looks more as if the paleo "test" of food items and ways of nutrition
is a test made only on relative young humans.
Not because they died early from bad nutrition, but because they died young
because of other reasons.

Looking for requirements in elder ages, some more should be taken into
consideration.

Cheers, Amadeus