Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:08:39 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> I believe we should only consume the types of foods that would have been
> available to our ancestors for millenia, foods that we would have
> consumed in volume and with sufficient frequency for adaptation. So for
> me cocoa is nowhere near paleo, being as it is a new world substance. I
> find striking resemblences with today's health claims for chocolate to
> the belief that cocaine was a cure-all near the turn of the last
> century.
>
> Jim Swayze
> www.fireholecanyon.com
>
>
There is good evidence that man was in the Americas over 30,000 years
and American Indian linguistic evolution is estimated to have taken well
over 40,000 years (Johanna Nichols).
As to "consumed in volume", I think it was this group were I posted
information on the Australian Aborigines where they looked at 839
different foods that were regularly consumed; a diet that was paleo up
until the 19th century(1800)s. I would hazard to guess that quite a few
of those foods were not consumed in volume and that many of them are
unique to Australia where man has had a limited occupation perhaps
greater than 30,000 years but not much more that 50,000 years in
Australia, yet I doubt very few, if any would question whither any of
those 839 foods are paleo.
Humans first entered Europe about 45,000 years ago which might make
European native foods non-paleo as well. In fact, everything outside of
Africa becomes non-paleo since immigration out of Africa may have
started no later than 50,000 years ago.
The arguments against natural cocoa seem to be without substance.
Additionally, the different defenses that plants have that man has
evolved some resistance too did not suddenly appear when he started
immigrating out of Africa.
Steve
|
|
|