PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Wade H. Reeser" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:22:49 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
At 03:15 PM 12/13/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>Jean-Claude wrote:

<snip>

>Humans are able only since the inventions of long range and strong
>weapons to kill-and-eat big animals.
>How would a gorilla or a australopithecus afarensis catch and kill
>a gnu or a gazelle?

I challenge this.  First, humans dont need long range or strong weapons
to kill big animals.  From the journals of Lewis and Clark, indians of the
plains would kill large herds of buffalo by chasing them off cliffs.  Also
pits were used.  Also, this doesnt account for carrion.  Some 'experts'
believe that humans were largely scavangers.

And comparing humans to gorillas or australopithicus makes about as much
sense as using them as exaples for why we shouldnt drive cars...


>Before 2 mio years ago, primates evolved as fuit eaters (some insects
>included) for about 300*hundred-thousand years.
>Humans don't have such a strong stomach acidity as  "real"
>predators (as big cats for example), which could kill off parasites
>and infections (from the food).

i challenge this also.  It is my understanding from physiology textbooks
that the stomache acidity in humans is about 2 pH.  This is about as
acid as any stomache gets.  Less acidity in humans is condsidered diseased.
This is the same as carnivores.

<snip>

>All this time most probably fire was there to help killing off
>parasites in the meat. Fire may be our adaption technique
>for eating more probable infected meats. Stomach acidity is not.

again, what good references do you have for the stomache acidity?
I dont think this is true at all.

>I'd expect that small animals in the wild (rabbit, rat) will
>have less danger to bear infections than old zebras.
>Towards smaller animals also tends the IMO excellent arcicle at
>http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_meat.htm

Why do you think smaller animals are less of a threat?  They certainly
get parisites.  Rather than what you expect or feel is true, is there
_any_ evidence for this supposition?

<snip>

>regards
>Amadeus S.
>

 Wade Reeser  [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2