william wrote:

>>- so would we do if we
>>didn't have treatments against parasites and infections and childbirth
>>
>>
>
>They probably didn't need such treatments. IMO
>
>
>

I see no reason to suppose that paleolithic people were impervious to
parasites and infections.  Other wild species are susceptible to them.
In addition, death by trauma, exposure, and predation would have had
some effect on life expectancy.  How common is death from old age among
wild mammalian species?  I have a hunch it is quite rare, but no firm
data.  And yet this is the sort of death to which paleo dieters and
other health enthusiasts aspire.


>> The issue is, I think that they did not die from
>>diseases inflicted by the food they ate.
>>
>>
>
>
>Yes, I agree.
>
>
>
That's one issue.  The other is whether survival into old age is itself
something for which our species has little evolutionary preparation.  If
that is so (I'm not convinced of it, but I don't think it has been
refuted either) then we have to consider the possibility that the
premise that a "natural" diet is the best path to longevity is just
wrong.  Longevity may be as unnatural as corn.  Humans may be optimized
for relatively short but vigorous lives.

It would be nice if we had data on what percentage of various
paleolithic populations lived past 40, past 50, etc.  Even more relevant
would be the probabilities of living to a given age, given that one has
already survived to a given age.  I would say, for example, that in most
human societies, the probability of living to 60 is much greater once
you've made it to 20, and the correlation is not linear.  But this is
just conjecture....

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]