Well, I hardly think that there could have been worse alternatives to 
fermented grain or raw dairy during  the Neolithic period - after all they didn't 
have trans-fats or additives  in those days , and they knew enough to 
ferment their grains and dairy  before consuming  them. But the collapse in 
health in the Neolithic seems to have been all-pervasive for those in settled, 
agricultural communities, according to the fossil record(re loss in average 
height, diseases caused by grain-consumption, reduction in average lifespan 
etc.). I'm sure that there were still a number of  communities left, following 
diets with a much higher proportion of animal-meats, and who were therefore 
healthier than the former, but that is not exactly an endorsement of a diet 
consisting partially of (fermented) grains and raw dairy - quite the opposite.

Geoff



On Fri, 11 May 2007 23:05:20 -0500, Tom Bri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I think he made some valid points, and I believe the Cordain has published
>some similar work on 'native' diets vs modern.
>
>I figure that societies that figured out how to limit the damage and get the
>best out of neolithic foods probably thrived and survived, whereas those
>that didn't get good nutrition failed.
>
>So using fermented grain may not be best, but much better than other
>alternatives, for example. ANd he strongly advocated certain food with high
>value, certain types of seafood for example, that provided nutrients to make
>up for the deficiencies of the grain based diets.
>
>We hope our paleo approach is better. I think it is, but I don't think his
>approach is worthless.
>> 
_________________________________________________________________
>> Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
>> https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
>>