On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 07:53:45 -0700, Ray Audette <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>This domestication however has happened too rapidly for us to fully
>adjust to a non-primate diet.  We are essentially the same as
>Neanderthals, only a neotenized (domesticated) gracile form of the same
>creature, hence NeanderThin.  The paleolithic diet of our ancestors is
>not the same as the neolithic diet they began adopting 10,000 years ago.
>The maximum human exposure to the forbidden fruit is only about 300
>generations <snip>
>... It also helps to explain why our optimum diet may not mirror
>modern hunter-gatherers who lived in an enviroment very different than
>that of the last million years during which the
 mega fauna thrived.
Ray,
I would underline your words about the times and generations humans
lived under neolithic and different paleolithic environments, and the
implications if the unnatural changes in today's diet.

The difference in my personal view is, that I would consider the plant
consuming- gathering part of the diet much more importance than the hunting.
Hunting is really necessary only in very cold climates where few plants are
available. And that is what makes the Neanderthal/CroMagnon difference:
Neanderthal had 500000 years in northern areas  CroMagnon only
25000 (from 35000 to 10000BC).

And before that, we have to look at about 2 millions of years in Africa,
which is very rich of various plant resources. There is no doubt that
the homo erectus/habilis fraction was able to, and did hunt.
But i doubt hunting to have had a big role in nutrition.
I'd see the hunting role similar to othe
r primates (chimps for example).
Gathering is much more efficient and much less dangerous-think of parasites.
Also i see few alternatives to energy (caloric) supply for prehistoric
humans to plants (and that is again
starches and sugars from roots and fruit).
Everybody knows that wild game is rather lean, and where should the energy
else come from?

If you speak in terms of years or generations of adaption, then i think you
should also consider the several million of years before the development
of hunting tools, as were pointed out nicely in Wards interview.
So that's our anchestor gallery:
.  2 Million years eating insects (mammals, small as mouses)
. 20 Million years as fruitarians
. 26 Million years as primate fruitarians
.  2 Million years as homo in a changed invironment (savanne) gatherer/hunter?
.  0.020 Million years as ice age european hunters/gatherers
.  0.010 Million year
s in neolithicum
.  0.000100 Years with "refined" food items
Makes a pretty long plant food adaption, isn't it?

If i look at todays usual food and compare it to a nowadays gatherer/hunter
or to a chimp like diet, than i find the main difference is not the grain -
there are grains in the savanne too.
It's the largely reduced vitamin- and fiber- content of the food
resulting from the "refinement"-process.

If it comes to nowadays practical translation into action of paleolithic
nutrition, I think we should concentrate much more on getting
an adequate supply of largely unmodified and fresh plants:
Tubers, nuts, fruit and yes, also grains.
With the focus on vitamin supply!

Wild game supply for greater parts of humanity is impossible anyway
except, maybe by ocean fish.

Probably my posting will be disliked especially some readers which
still have the picture of an neanderthal mu
nching down a mammouth
as our main anchestral diet. And trying to get as much meat and
percentage of protein as possible.

But my paleolithic picture is different, its a gatherer,
living on fruit, bears, seeds, nuts, herbs and tubers,
from time to time only hunting a (small!) animal.
That of course alters the protein percentage from the crazy 30 percent
to about the 11 percent which also todays h/g people consume.

regards

Amadeus