>HOwever, I would point out that studies on adaptation
>physiology concur in saying that  a small stature is an advantage when
>living in the tropical/equatorial zone (the more skin surface the higher the
>evapo-perspiration...).


I have never read about those studies, but the fact that a small stature
is an advantage does not seem obvious to me. After all, the Homo Sapiens
is much taller than the Australopithecus.
Concerning the evapo-perspiration topic, for a man in the shade, the
heat is proportional to the cube of the height (because it comes from the
body's metabolism), and the skin surface is only proportional to the square
of the height, so you are right. But for a man staying in the sun, the
heat probably comes mainly from the incident solar radiation, so it is
proportional to the skin surface. Thus, the water necessary to cool the
body's temperature is proportional to the square of the height, whereas
the total weight of the body's fluids is proportional to the cube... so,
in that case, the tall subject is advantaged.

And even if a high stature was a drawback in the tropical/equatorial zone,
the Masai example seems to show that the arguments against raw milk may
not be so serious. I know some babies show intolerances to cow's milk,
and there is the story about Burger's infection. Maybe there are as many
differences between cow's milk and woman's milk as between a cow and a
woman, but we instinctos eat animals that are very different from those
in the original African biotope. Tomatoes, avocadoes and many other fruits
originate from the New World, and are very different from the Old World's
fruits.

Experience also shows that instinct does not always work. A friend of mine,
although she likes pollen and used to absorb huge quantities of it, now has
an acute stomach pain each time she eats even a tiny portion. Of course,
one could object that pollen is not an "original" food, but I also
personally know cases of allergy to seafood and to strawberries.

Cheers,

Jean-Louis Tu
([log in to unmask])