I wrote:
>> But most plants provide their energy without burdening much protein
>>"stress"
>> on the kindneys and liver. While still provinding abundant of protein
>> for structural purposes (>> RDA).
>> (we are not endangered by cookies and cakes here)

On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:48:24 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>This "stress" is just the organs doing their job.  Tubers
>"stress" the pancreas.

Doing their job can work glitchless and can arise problems from too high
volume or environmental factors.
The liver only does it's job when working on alcohol?
Still it can break down with it.

The pancreas has evolved over yearmillions to sustain a 99% carb nutrition
(from fruit). On the other hand it may be diseased in many "western" people
(my guess by b-vitamin shortage).

A high protein diet puts more work on kidney and liver in gluconeogenesis
and in eliminating the toxic nitrogen wastes.
Environmental factors (toxins) can have damaged or stressed the tissues
before.

I think it would not be especially wise to approach a metabolic boundary,
where protein is known to be toxic (35% of calories or some breakdown to
weight, if you want).

> I've already argued that as far as I'm
>concerned the RDA for protein is only enough to prevent protein
>deficiency problems, but humans thrive on considerably more.  The
>fact that contemporary hunter-gatherers get about twice as much
>protein as most civilized people is a clue, I think.

Living in the wild, where calories are the bottleneck and in the more
deserted areas which are left today they *have to* have a high protein diet.
There's no sign that *this* is especially helpful.
It may be just bearable.
How much is double RDA andway?

>I agree that nuts and tubers would have been exploited when
>available.  It would be interesting to find a population of
>hunter-gatherers that actually *preferred* tubers to animal
>foods, if both were available.  In North America, the "duck
>potato" is widely available, but as far as I can tell most native
>Americans still made extensive use of meats.
>..Certainly
>there are places in the world where one could get enough energy
>from plants alone, all year.  But even in those places, nobody
>does so.

This a point which makes me think about.
!Kung for example.
On the one hand they get by far most of their food energy from the nuts.
Explainable in the need to equal out meat protein by added nut fat.

On the other hand they choose to include meat, though nuts would deliver
all what necessary, in theory.
My first idea was: They prefer variety and just exploit *all* available food
sources.
Now I've come to the point, that they need a significant meat percentage,
because the mongongo nuts have too much antinutrients to serve as
the sole protein source (they *are* to be processed).

Given a choice of food items as available in todays environment, the
hunter/gatherers *are* such. They use to hunt and fish significantly.

For a homo xyz-us living in a savannah the situation was quite different.
As i told, I think they did eat some animals.
Small prey or carrion if available, but to a small extent - probably they
weren't very good hunters before the "big bang" of
40k years ago.
- they had no arrows, spears probably also not much thrown.
- fishing was hardly possible (no fishhooks , nets)
- less technology in many details (e.g.clothing)

>If your view is that HGs only turn to animal foods as a last
>resort, I don't think there's much support for that.

Not last resort, but as a suboptimal food with its problems, dangers and
benefits.
Let say, you are left in the australia outback and find a kangaroo carcass
some days old, killed by a dingo.
If you are well equipped and not hungry i guess you would avoid it.
If you were starving, you might be happy of any piece, despite flies and
decomposing..
There will be some cases inbetween.


Neolithic conversion:

>>.. people, who had grains lentils and flax were so successful.

>I disagree.  There is no evidence that neolithic people were
>successful because they were healthier.  Rather, they were
>successful because they were more numerous.

The number hardly explains the rate of progress at which Linearband
invaded whole western Europe in 200 years.
It was about 5km per year. Or 25km per generation.
About the space for one generation in one generation.
Hard to expect, that more land could be put to work in this time.

The mesolithic population present before *mixed* with Linearband.
You can find mesolithic bones (easily distinguishable, beeing more robust)
in earliest neolitic settlement remains.

It was not like "cowboy and indian", not competing (most indians were
agricultural). Linearband only went to ideal places with water and best
soil. Much mesolithic hunting-space was left.

Or maybe it was (cowboy and indian), when after some hundred years, less
ideal places were selected and settlements became surrounded by palisades.
However at this time population had few h/g left. The palisades probably
worked to protect resources (stores) from other neolithics.

I don't see wars nor genetic outnumbering in Linearband vs. mesolithic.
I see secure resources and comfortable houses as the competing factor.

And the first point wouldn't have worked if Linearband would have been a
diseased population with chronic inflammations.

Cereal grains have a EFA imbalance to the w-6 side, while supplying
between 2.4% and 7% fat (wheat and oats, and that *is* similar to game).
Flax with its predominant w-3 EFAs (and 31% fat) is the ideal complementary
food. Like lentils upvalue the cereal protein low in lysin.

Flax was an important nutritional factor, not only for clothing.

archaeowhishes

Amadeus S.