William:
> Not good enough; when Carrie showed ( 25 Mar 2007 14:44:22) that the
> "scientists" cannot tell the difference between the bones of the aged
> and
> the bones of the young.

I agree that Lawrence Angel's data is not the final word, it's just all that
I've seen. If anyone has any other data on Paleolithic average life spans
I'd love to see it.

William:
> This discussion is puzzling, as lack of disease/aging is the reason why
> we  eat paleofood.
> If you really believe that paleofood cannot improve health/longevity,
> then
> why eat it? 

Now I'm puzzled. I don't believe that and I'm not sure how you got that from
what anyone wrote. There were questions about whether Stone Agers had short
lives and whether that undercuts the case for Paleofood, but I didn't notice
anyone actually taking the position that Paleofood cannot help. It may not
make one immortal, but it can help.

William:
> You are going to die at 32.

As I said before, not all Stone Agers died before the age of 36. That is an
AVERAGE figure (and it could be off), not the upper limit. It includes many
infants who died in childbirth as well as some Stone Agers who reached their
60's, 70's, etc.