Richard Keene wrote:
>I see your already thinking along the correct lines.  Just think,
>"could a hunter-gatherer have found this food?"
>Thus you can eat Beef, Pork, Chicken, Rabbit, Deer, Fish,
>and such.

Just a remark- i can't resist after the "could have found":

He couldn't have found Pork (except wild boar).
Pork is a creature developed by *modern* agriculture
(less than 1000 years old, not even neolithic)
It is annatural fat, its fat accumulates all poisons and chemicals
of the unnatural food it gets fed of.

He couldn't have found chicken for similar reasons
(mainly fed and fat).

He couldn't have found Beef for the same reasons.
But lean beef may be closer to prehistoric animals and wild game.

Fish is on the menu only since about 60000 years, this is the time
when fishhooks and nets were invented
(give or take a less a few 10000 years and a small quantity
may have been speared)
Remember Tasmanians? No fishhooks. Not bows and arrows.

Since split-off from anchestors common with gorillas
is 6000000 years away, fish is only about 1% of the time on the menu.

Rabbits, Deers, smaller rodents, birds, insects and worms
are perfect prey.

Many fruit available today he couldn't have found, or at least
(what i'd consider important) not simultaneously
together in a big mixture.
Whats unnatural about them is the "exaggerated" sugar contents.
There are some real wild fruit and berries (beware some poisonous).
There are some closer to the wild
- from longer living trees (mangos?)
which don't modify so quickly and older varieties (of apples).

Chestnuts, and real nuts (tree seed) are a perfect gathering.
Roots and berries and (not-so-sweet) fruit too.
Green herbs (some salads, remember arugula and several "weeds"),
very beneficial and important may be underestimated.

regards

Amadeus

--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net