On Thu, 3 May 2001 18:08:07 EDT, Gawen Harrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>The assumption that we are genetically mainly fruit eaters is wrong.

Gawen or David - on what we are now you can debate.
However we stem from a fruit eating population, as all primates are.
50 million years speak a impressive voice, before at most 2 million years
of more uncertain sources.

>After we left the tropical zones, fruit was only available for a couple
>months a year. The fruit also was not nearly as sweet.

After we left the tropical zones... there's a
long long way to the northern regions, where the Inuit live.

I'm not talking about sweetness, I'm talking about energy sources.
What kind of fruit you may choose, most energy available in nature is in
form of carbohydrates. E.g. rosehips: 0.4 percent fat, 20% carbs 3.6%
protein .
There are good sources of fat as well. Particularly nuts and some seeds.
For animal fat you have to go faaaar north, as we've seen.

To avoid carbohydrates... a good idea for a diabetic, for a inuit
or if you hope to find weight loss in this way.

For paleolithic people you have to explain where and when such could have
occured among *your* anchestry. And please don't think of only the last
40k years. That's only 2% of 2 mio years.

The real culprit of the disadvantages of carbohydrates are the common
extractions. Sugar, white flour, extracted starch and devitaminizing
precessings (there are a lot).
In my humble opinion.

Nature carbohydrates (eating whole items) serve real energy.
They are real paleo and healthy unless your system hasn't been damadged by
the extracted ones before (diabetes).

Carbohydrates are necessary to make eating of wild game possible unless it
is as fat as the force fed cattle and pigs of today are.
You have to go quite far to the north to find such fatty animals
year round in the wild.

Todays Europe/US climate animals demand to add carbohydrates or fat.
If there wasn't fat there, it must have been carbs.

Regards, Amadeus