Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 15 May 2008 05:17:02 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I disagree. It's quite easy to work out which foods can make one last longer.
For example, the Native Americans of previous centuries would deliberately
stock up with pemmican( meat plus lots of fat) for long journeys. They were
also acutely aware of the condition of rabbit-starvation, which occurs when
you have too much protein and almost no fats(or carbs) - the result was that
they always made sure to get hold of enough fatty meats, not just for taste
reasons.
Geoff
On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:08:45 -0500, Robert Kesterson
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:53:45 -0500, Geoffrey Purcell
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>...
>> since meats are more nutrient-dense than plants, it makes sense for
>> hunter-gatherers to depend mainly on meats, as a result.
>
>Paleo man probably didn't know much about which foods were more
>nutrient-dense than others. He did know which ones he could obtain
>easily, which were likely to increase or decrease sickness, and which were
>more tasty or satisfying. In that regard, paleo man and modern man don't
>differ much, it's just that modern man isn't as discerning about what
>increases or decreases sickness.
>
>--
> Robert Kesterson
> [log in to unmask]
|
|
|