Anna L. Abrante wrote:
>  If there are so many natives that thrive and live long lives on grains/legumes/dairy, how can one
> say that paleo, or any other diet, is healthier??
>

The best reference here is Mark Cohen and G.J. Armelagos' book "Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture".
In this work a series of papers detail the differences between paleolithic and neolithic human remains.

These differences are also discussed in the other two Cohen books I list in my bibliography.

That some neolithic people did better than others (including some late 19th and early 20th century urban
dwellers) is of little consequense when seen in the broader view.  Varriables such as contaigous diseases,
warfare, famine, working conditions and even natural castastrophies further cloud data.  Even our historical
studies of hunter-gatherers have been colored by the influence of trade goods which preceeded the explorers by
hundreds (or even thousands) of years.

Domestic dogs have been eating the forbidden fruit for far more generations than humans have.  They still do
better on a wolf diet than they do on even the most advanced formulas of dog food made from grains and beans. I
think humans will do better if they stick to Primate foods.

Ray Audette
Author "NeanderThin"