Hans Kylberg wrote:

>Just because some people here ore there in later or other paleo times
>have eaten a food, it does not mean that that food is something Homo
>Sapiens evolved to eat. The methods we have to decide what is "paleo" or
>not are very very coarse. Discussing details about some evidence or other
>that this or that was eaten is just waste of time and bytes.

There is indeed a difficulty to define different foods as "paleo" or
not. And different points of view.
Like Neanderthin or Thinuit or "naked with a stick"-interpretations
or own interpretations of evolution's  ways.

Hans, I posted this information for the following reason:
I think it's the wrong way to totally condemn a certain food item
as alien and forbidden, just because no remainders have been found yet.
From paleolithicum, due to the many years, most remainders are only
stones and bones, and many think of the paleolithicum as "the"
hunting and meat eating time.
I personally don't see it this way, to the opposite, the puzzle stones
i collected lead me to the impression that -before 30k years ice age-
animal carcasses were more like an emergency food (but not excluded).

Now that once we encounter plant remainders in a cave
we do have a proof that the much condemned cereals and pulses
*have* been part of the diet. Probably as every other edible
thing, humans could find.
They *are* edible and have been accepted as such.
But todays common diets (western standard) have altered these items
so much that we can't recognize them back as they were.
By milling, storing and genetic alterations without thought.

But probably old paleolithic humans didn't have a single or few
"staples" with a neverending supply.

One of the most agreeable statements on the last time,
i consider the one from Troy G about variety in diets.
I can only underline this.
To be understood rhight: variety doesn't mean as much things as
possible mixed in one meal. This would only end up in a
neverending bombardement of all kinds of different proteins and toxins.

Variety i think has to be thought of *ending* the supply of one
food item from time to time, and switching from one to the other
from time to time (like seasonal for example).

I personally try to adopt this principle by plain and simple meals
and varying the main stocks. I have an almond time, an avocado time
a carrot, chickoree, walnut, pear, orange, fruit, flaxseed, millet
sunflower, lentil time, olive and hemp time. Goatcheese time too.
Various fresh dark greens whenever accessible (lambs lettuce, arugula).
Dozends smaller categories more.
Many periods, some short some long. But all ending from time to time.

>What we need to know is what food was available in _amounts_ on the
>african savanna at _periods_ critical for the selection of the fittiest
>individuals that formed our species. Those are the foods we look for.
Yes, and i think its important too to think about the *way*
they were accessible and eaten
- perhaps more important than distinguishing new worlds food.
Always fresh - seldom stored - never conserved.
Varying from season to season. In day or week-long phases of
plentiness if a good gathering place was found.

>Other foods can probably be eaten in small amounts.
Many foods should better be
restricted to small amounts, and shorter phases.

Troy G. wrote and I agree and would underline this (mentioned above):
>In NEANDERTHIN, we discuss the importance of variety in one's diet.
>Variety is what ensures adequate nutrient intake.
>Anyone who restricts their dietary
>choices to a small number of foods is courting vitamin and/or mineral
>deficiencies.

Michael Audette wrote from Cherokee times, matching meals simplicity:
> When I  lived with the Cherokee years ago, they noticed my habit of
>one food at a time on my plate. I was told that's the way Native Americ
>ate. ..

regards
Amadeus S.


--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net