Todd Moody wrote:

>It depends on how you think about these things.  If Ray's
>"foreign protein" idea is correct, the percentage of energy
>intake is irrelevant, since even small quantities of flax would
>provide sufficient protein to affect the immune system and thus
>create selection pressure.
>
>There is a passage in the New Testament where Jesus and the
>apostles are "busted" for breaking the Sabbath by picking whole
>wheat kernels and rubbing in them in their hands to remove the
>husks, in order to eat them.  I presume that paleolithic people
>could do the same.  Granted, this would be a seasonal thing as it
>is with fruit and nut consumption.  Nevertheless, if the argument
>is valid that seasonal consumption of fruit and nuts is
>sufficient to allow us to adapt to them, then I suppose it should
>work for those grains that we had access to as well.
>
>Ray has emphasized that we should recognize the intelligence of
>hunter-gatherers, and to me this implies that they were shrewd
>opportunists, discovering and exploiting every nutritional nook
>and cranny of their environment.


My use of the term "energy intake" is intended in a quantitative sense, so
perhaps it is too specific.  In any case (including where foreign proteins
are concerned) I think that quantity is anything but irrelevant.  The higher
the yearly intake, the greater the selective pressure.

Optimal foraging theory pretty much rules out the use of things like grains
in all but the leanest of times.  In other words, the energy spent gathering
them delivers less of a return than an equal amount of energy spent
gathering or hunting other food sources.  So unless more profitable food
sources run short, grains are ignored.  My understanding is that a wide
variety of easily attained foods were available to paleolithic peoples
during the months of the year when grains are mature.

B. Lischer