On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Phosphor wrote:

> while you were absent [presumably hiding, hoping i would forgot your
> unbackable claim] we discussed this 77% figure. cordain got this figure from
> precisely one study.  his writings are not worth the paper they are printed
> on. how does he know what aborigines ate if he knows nothing about what
> animals are here?  ignorance is bliss...

Please explain why one study is worthless while your opinion,
which is based on no studies, is authoritative.

You may find the following, based on O'Dea's research,
interesting: "Reversion to high-protein, meat-based diet improves
lipid and carbohydrate metabolism in Westernized, diabetic
Australian Aborigines. O'Dea [1984] presents the results of a
study on 10 diabetic and 4 non-diabetic full-blooded Australian
Aborigines. They were tested both before and after living for 7
weeks in the traditional (hunter-gatherer) manner, in
northwestern Australia. The 7 weeks consisted of 1.5 weeks of
travel, 2 weeks at a coastal location living on mostly seafood,
and 3.5 weeks inland living on land animals with some wild plant
foods.

During the first 1.5 weeks (travel time), the diet was 90% animal
foods on an energy (caloric) basis. The coastal diet composition
was nearly all animal foods, mostly seafood with some birds and
kangaroo, and was approximately 80% protein, 20% fat, and less
than 5% carbohydrate. The diet at the inland location was 64%
animal foods (by energy) and 36% plant foods, the macronutrient
content of which was 54% protein, 13% fat, and 33% carbohydrate."

(Source:
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7l.shtml)

So we see a significant difference in the amount of plant foods
utilized, depending on location.  This is reasonably consistent
with the 23% figure quoted from Macarthur by Cordain.  It's
interesting to note that at both coastal and inland locations,
the diet is very low in fat.  The 80% protein figure is
remarkable.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]