[log in to unmask] wrote:
> I believe we should only consume the types of foods that would have been
> available to our ancestors for millenia, foods that we would have
> consumed in volume and with sufficient frequency for adaptation. So for
> me cocoa is nowhere near paleo, being as it is a new world substance. I
> find striking resemblences with today's health claims for chocolate to
> the belief that cocaine was a cure-all near the turn of the last
> century. 
>
> Jim Swayze
> www.fireholecanyon.com
>
>   
There is good evidence that man was in the Americas over 30,000 years 
and American Indian linguistic evolution is estimated to have taken well 
over 40,000 years (Johanna Nichols).

As to "consumed in volume", I think it was this group were I posted 
information on the Australian Aborigines where they looked at 839 
different foods that were regularly consumed; a diet that was paleo up 
until the 19th century(1800)s.  I would hazard to guess that quite a few 
of those foods were not consumed in volume and that many of them are 
unique to Australia where man has had a limited occupation perhaps 
greater than 30,000 years but not much more that 50,000 years in 
Australia, yet I doubt very few, if any would question whither any of 
those 839 foods are paleo.

Humans first entered Europe about 45,000 years ago which might make 
European native foods non-paleo as well.  In fact, everything outside of 
Africa becomes non-paleo since immigration out of Africa may have 
started no later than 50,000 years ago.

The arguments against natural cocoa seem to be without substance.  
Additionally, the different defenses that plants have that man has 
evolved some resistance too did not suddenly appear when he started 
immigrating out of Africa.

Steve