In the article there was a good point made, which I am sure has been
looked at before, but I want to hear what the current readers think.

Lets assume that the h/g diet (whatever we are saying it is) is the best
diet for us, and in fact provides optimal nutrition.  Is this optimal for
our entire lives, or more like the normal span of a h/g's life, say ~50
yrs?  Is there no addition, substituion or special emphasis that will
benefit us modern people today?  E.g. if I thrive on nuts, seeds,
berries, veggies, and alot of red meat, is this my best choice over my
entire lifetime?  Couldn't I gain benefits if I emphasized more red meat
early on, then slowly switched to more nuts, or something similar?

This is an interesting question, and you need to think about it for a
minute.  It is easy to just think that one static diet is the best over
our whole lifespan, but we are living longer than the average h/g did.  I
am not talking about total 180 degree changes, but maybe some changes in
emphasis - red meat to fish, more fruits to more veggies, a little more
nuts.  This is just an example.  There could be arguments to go 100% red
meat or something else as well.

The main question here is do our nutritional needs change as we age?
Aren't the needs of a 14 yr old different as he/she gets to 30, 60, 90?
And if so, shouldn't these changing nutritional needs be reflected in our
dietary choices?

James Crocker
============================
"Beautiful are the things we see.
More beautiful those we understand.
Much the most beautiful those we do
not comprehend."
Niels Steensen, 1638-1686
============================