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]