On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:23:05 -0500, Philip Thrift <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 12:54:58 -0500, Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>><35% carbs :
>>At which time?
>>What is counted as "carbs"?
>
>In the Late Ice Age this is refering to the primary subsistence
>on big game meat - reindeer, mammoth, bison, .... In some locations
>over 80% of consumption was from big game meat.

Agree for the northern regions (like whole europe) in the late ice age.
And this brings people into the anchestry of most of us, which have
prooven to survive on a nutrition of (fatty) wild game and not much else.
That's the proove that is should work.
But as you note the timeframe is much too small for adaptions to happen.
We don't know how healthy *this* paleo people were. We know the probably
were very few.

I note that the late ice age was from 40,000 to 12,000 BC.
This is only a very very small bit of the 2,000,000 years of genus homo
or of the 60,000,000 years of primates.

I note that even in ice ages the landscape we probably did evolve in
(africa) was ice-free and very dry.

Conclusion:game meat/fat nutrition like grain/legume nutrition is
stone-age proven to successfully sustain humans, both with some possible
risks of non-adaption due to genetic variability.

The actual historical long-term paleo-nutrition with plenty of time to let
adaptions happen should be oriented to what happened in a alternating dry
and arid savannah-like landscape.
Likely with some game-meat, likely with nuts and tubers and very probable
with large amounts of very fiberous low-density plants.

Amadeus S.