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