On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:36:15 -0800, Wally Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>More confusion about Cordain's ratios:
>
>>   Paleolithic: fat-22% protein-37% carbohydrate-41%
>
>And
>
>>                         % Plant         % Animal
>> Median                  16-25%          76-85%
>
>
>Don't really seem to add up. Are there some "high
>carbohydrate" animals I don't know about?

It doesn't add up.

But i think the macronutrient ratios you quoted are for
*paleolithic* people (based on certain assumptions)
and that the plant/animal ratios are from *present day* gatherhunters.

That would mean that the present gatherhunting cultures eat more animal that
paleolithic humans.
I'm shure that this *is* the case.
1.Today's hunters/gatherers are left to live in areas noone else wanted.
Deserts. In deserts there are few plants.
The present day plant/animal ratios are from a study "Speth..." which is
quoted often.  There are extreme cases in it. Inuit with some 99% animal and
!Kung which are the highest in plants.

The "median" quoted is the median of all todays *cultures".
Inuit count as much as Yanonami, regardless of the area they live in and the
similarity to paleolithic scenarios.

There are no paleolithic Inuit. The ice age environment of most hominids
will have been close to today's !Kung of Africa.

2.Today's h/gs simply have better weapons.
Bows/arrows are known since only a "few" years.

I think this explains the difference.

I note that the above Cordain paleolithic macronutrient ratio
"Paleolithic: fat-22% protein-37% carbohydrate-41%"
sets the protein ratio to the highet bearable protein part.
37% is close to protein toxicity.
Can it be that all paleolithic people ate close to the toxicity limit all
the time? There's also a limit of toxicity of alcohol. What would happen if
all people lived all the time close to alcohol toxicity?

There are ways to live without balancing at this limit. (Nuts....)

The rest of the energy is just divided into 1/3 from fat and 2/3 from carbs.
In a savannah I think this is rather optimistic in favour of the fat.
Consider availability compared to carb availability.

Regards, Amadeus S.