On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, John C. Pavao wrote:

> But then couldn't you make the same assumption about grains?

[that "paleobabe" would be grinding them]

I think the answer is that, prior to agriculture, the gathering
and grinding of grains requires a greater caloric expenditure
than you can make up by eating the end product.  It would be a
losing proposition, and calories *do* count.  Agriculture reduces
the caloric overhead somewhat by concentrating the grains in one
place, and technology reduces it even further.

HOWEVER, foods that can be made edible by soaking, such as wild
rice and some legumes, would not be such a caloric rip-off, since
they are calorically dense and hence worth gathering.  Amaranth
would be another example.  The gathering is still work, but
soaking involves little additional labor, and is at the same
technological level as a sharp stick.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]