On Thu, 18 May 2000 15:28:59 MDT, Dori Zook <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >"Very" low carb? Maybe not. But it would take a helluva lot of >pre-agriculture fruit to come even CLOSE to the Pepsi-Twinkie-Wonder >Bread-Spaghettios diet of today. This is our common enemy, i think. > Fruits are the only significant source of >carbs in the diet of early humans and fruits then is completely different >from fruit today. Yes, much more fiber, less sweet, but still energy mostly from carbs. What about roots, onions, tubers? Blossoms, ordinary plant parts ("vegetables") ? I expect in an opening woodland (developping to a savanne) a much better access to under-earth storage organs of plants (tubers). Available to humans with a stick technology. Digging instead of plucking. >Even a conservative scientist will tell you that humans are omnivores. That >means we eat it all, including meat. Did one of you just fall off the >turnip truck? Presently? Tuttivores? Omnivores is how most scientists call humans *after* onset of the ice ace 2 mio years ago (but not before). You can be an omnivore eating from 2% of occasionally insects or maggots to eating 95% walrus. Does it mean that we *have* to eat it? I think not. Ward Nicholson once suggested me to consider that over the years slowly a dependency on meat of some kind may have emerged. So far I've not detected any demanding point. Otherwise I'd supplement. What I do supplement from time to time is vitamin C. ... >.. humans are omnivores. That >means we eat it all, including meat. What does that imply on percentages? Increasing meat will begin to displace other foodstuff. Displacing "evil" food (like bagels :-)) fine. Displacing else? Depends how close is the meat you get to a healthy paleo-style meat. Do you think so? regards Amadeus S