Todd Moody wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But the main thing is that the paleo idea gives us a kind of
> "square one" to work from.  There is reason to believe that paleo
> foods are *likely* to be well tolerated and health-sustaining,
> even though it it not completely certain.  But this gives us only
> a very vague picture, as you've pointed out.  There is a lot we
> don't know, and may never know, about what actual populations of
> actual prehistoric people ate, and about how healthy they were.
>
>
>
> This is a wonderful post as it puts so much in proper perspective that is
> debated on this list.  A couple of additional points that have been
> mentioned previously that i think bear repeating are the consideration of
> whether or not the evolutionary diet is optimum for those of us past
> prime child rearing years.  That is, should we assume that a diet that is
> best for a 22 year old is also best for a 52 year old?  Does  the
> evolutinary process "care"  about us after procreation and child
> rearing?  There have been a couple of  recent references to the questions
> that have been raised re dating skeletal remains as to probable age of
> individual and that research, as it proceeds,  may aid in answering that
> question.  Another point that has always intrigued me is the tremendous
> variety in available paleo food sources depending upon latitude and
> elevation that  would have been available to particular populations
> geographically and climatically stable for evolutionarily significant
> periods of time.  This also leads to the question of the effect on the
> whole issue of the melting pot, or,  in my case, alphabet soup, character
> of our various genetic makeup. Great post!  Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>