> There is ample evidence that they *didn't* eat them,
> the
> implication of which is considerably more than
> nothing.  Since
> the premise of this diet is that the best foods are
> those to
> which we are adapted by long exposure, and we have
> less exposure
> to tomatoes than to grains (and dairy, for that
> matter), it
> doesn't make a lot of sense to include tomatoes
> while excluding
> grains and dairy.

Sorry to enter into the fray, but I must take
exception to the preceeding comment. Long term
adaption should not be the ONLY prerequisite for
adopting a food. IMO the food must also be shown to
have deliterious effects on a large population base to
indicate avoidance. Otherwise, a number of foods most
of us would consider paleo might not be, including
other fruits besides tomatoes, as well as some veggies
and fish. There is ample evidence that dairy in
general, as well as grains and beans, should be
avoided even if we COULD consider them paleo.

I also question whether tomatoes were "post" grains
since some researchers believe there were humans on
this continent 20,000 years (or more) ago. This would
pre-date the agricultural use of grains. "If" they ate
tomatoes at that time, that is...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com