Day, Wally wrote:


> 
> Plus, I can't fathom any paleo analyzing their food and making the
> determination that "hmm, If I cook this it will kills enzymes, which
> is bad." Paleos would have had no choice but to eat whatever they
> could, whenever they could, however they could. Everything would have
> been "fair game".

This seems to assume that paleoman was so stupid that he could not know 
whether or not he was sick from eating cooked meat, this is likely to 
affect his hunting success.
No choice? In a planet teeming with edible animals?

> 
> The problem I have with the raw-foodists and instinctos (by the way,
> anyone hear from Jean-Claude?) is this whole premise that paleos
> lived some sort of idealistic, "perfect" noble-savage lifestyle, when
> all of the fossilized and historical evidence indicates otherwise.
> 
No marks of disease, rare injuries on their bones, which are perfectly 
formed, unlike ours. Looks like they lived better than we, they 
certainly ate better otherwise why are we trying to copy their diet?
They were wiser.

William