On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:01:51 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, that is one possible sort of answer.  Another may be that we
> >are trying for levels of health and vitality that are higher than
> >what was "needed" for our bare survival.
> Humans or humanoids in the wildlife probably need the very best
> level of health and vitality. Otherwise they would be eaten by predators or
> outperformed by fitter contemporaries -

I agree.  I guess it would have been better to say there is no
reason why we shouldn't try to exceed the levels of health
enjoyed by paleolithic people, if it is possible to do so.

> >..  We are exposed to other
> >pro-oxidants in the form of pollutants.  As a result, we are more
> >at risk for oxidative damage than our paleo predecessor were, and
> >can make use of more antioxidants than they had access to.
> Health risks which are fighed with antioxidants are probably
> today more essential than before (except exposure to sun rays).
>
> This may be a good field for supplementation. With Vitamin E, C, Selen.
> Or eat more of the natural providers of this.

Yes.  In addition, as I have mentioned before, those of us who
are cooking our food and buying it from stores where it has taken
days to get to the shelf are not eating freshly picked and
freshly killed stuff.  There is loss of nutrients, even if we are
eating the "right" foods.  For this reason, too, supplementation
makes sense.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]