Denis:
>On the definition of Natural Diet :
>I understand your point. If I made this remark, it is simply because, from
>my earlier experience on the list,  I fear a danger that your historical,
>evolutionary   conception of man's natural diet , as you defined it,  be
>perverted  the "static thought" so prominent amongst  advocates of
>paleolithic diets .   Sort of : "our ancestors ate this in the past in such
>proportion  , so we should eat it also ".  This problem is very peculiar to
>the US instincto movement because paleolithic diet is something unheard of
>here (apart from a restricted circle) . The risk , as I see it, is deriving
>the notion of "natural diet"   from a given period of time of our history
>. Paleolithic studies can tell us only about the Paleotlithic, but the
>truth lies millions of years before. Does it make a difference ? For sure.
>Just think about the quantity and attractiveness of meat you can get from
>the tropical forest without any arrows, and compare it with the  amount of
>fat  buffalo meat eaten on the average by any pre-columbian indian hunting
>the rich plains of Iowa . Paleolothic studies has yet to reveal us, if it
>can,  how much durian we used to eat  during each of these glorious golden
>days .....   Which comes down to : "since we cannot  expect Prehistorical
>studies to tell the whole truth, let's avoid historical concepts in the
>definition of man's natural diet." Makes sense, no ?

No. Just because something doesn't tell the whole truth (which, of course,
nothing can) hardly means it should be avoided. Even so, instincto falls
victim to the same reasoning you accuse paleo-diets of: 'deriving the
notion of "natural diet" from a given period of time of our history;
namely, pre-fire homonids as opposed to late paleolithic as paleo-diets
generally do.

Tigers reportedly favor durian as well, but I hardly think it proves that
they shouldn't eat a high prtion of animal foods. Elephants reportedly
favor durian as well, but I hardly...

Cheers,
Kirt