On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Phosphor wrote:
> >Please explain why one study is worthless while your >opinion, which is
> based on no studies, is authoritative.
>
> well, one study doth not a summer make. at least cordain is shrewd enough
> not to present this in an academic environment, but as comic-book diet
> ideas.
Well, you now have two studies. Furthermore, Cordain's research
*is* presented in an academic environment, i.e., a peer-reviewed
academic journal.
> i apeal to the highest court of all: common sense. amadeus asks, perplexed,
> how could an aboriginal get more than 77% of his calories from animal
> source. i say: catch thee a yellowbelly. or eat 3 emu eggs. not 77%, 100%.
That's one issue. The other is the idea, which you scorned, that
aborigines got as much as 23% of energy from plant foods. The
O'Dea article suggests that coastal aborigines may get 90-100% of
energy from animal foods, especially seafoods, but inland groups
need considerably more plants. What is striking is the low fat
content of both diets.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|