My purpose in my attempted construction was in the hopes that others would
find faults with it, in the hopes that we might reach something resembling
consensus on what is closest to a natural diet for modern humans.

I had assumed that "meat" included organ meats, but as Loren points out
it's probably best to mention them explicitely, since at least in America
so many people rarely or never eat them.  (In such a large country you can
find someone somewhere eating just about anything of course; I am speaking
of what is typical daily fare for most.)

I have questions and critiques of the diets posted in both _Neander Thin_
by Ray Audette and _The Paleolithic Prescription_ by Eaton, Shostak, and
Konner.  I have more criticism of _The Paleolithic Prescription_ because
Eaton et. al. seemed almost afraid to follow their own logic to its natural
conclusions. For example, they noted that hunter/gatherer diets average
anywhere from 20% to about 60% protein, and used this to recommended a diet
of no more than 20% protein.  They noted that dairy and cereal grains were
alien to humans in nature, but stated that these foodstuffs were "too
valuable" to eliminate, without bothering to say what was so valuable about
them or even to open the question of whether that was a valid assumption.

Eaton, Shostak, and Konner also seem to feel (in this particular book) that
honey is an important source of dietary carbohydrate, and use this in part
to justify a recommendation that a majority (60%) of daily calories for
modern humans should come from carbohydrate.  But this seems absurd; while
I am quite certain that honey would be prized as a delicious treat by most
any primitive peoples, it seems awfully unlikely that braving wild bee
nests just to obtain a few ounces of honey would ever be a daily ritual. It
also doesn't seem that there would be enough beehives with enough honey to
make the stuff more than an occasional treat even if braving bees nests
were trivial.

I have always assumed that Eaton et. al. made these recommendations both
out of prudent conservatism and out of a desire not to face a strong
backlash.  The American nutritional establishment tends to worship at the
ground of whole grains and dairy products and to view both protein and fat
with antipathy. Nevertheless this also means that while the book is
marvelously informative (and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in
this subject), on the subject of their explicit dietary recommendations
(which make up only one chapter of a lengthy and truly -excellent- book)
their logic seems flawed.

As for Ray Audette's book _Neander Thin_: his diet recommendations (which I
think are overall very sensible) forbids even small amounts of alchohol or
vinegar, which may or not be reasonable, depending on whether humans in the
wild ever eat over-ripe fruits.  He also states rather unequivocally that
potatoes and beans are foreign to the human digestive tract, and yet we
know that the African !Kung eat some forms of beans (see _The Paleolithic
Prescription_ again) and that some primitive peoples eat some forms of wild
tubers.

Loren's recent comments about wild tubers being radically different from
the popular potatoes eaten by most Westerners, however, make a great deal
of sense. But this still leaves open the question of beans.  It seems to be
commonly believed that primitive peoples eat beans. Eaton et. al. mention
beans eaten by the !Kung San in _The Paleolithic Prescription_, Ann Louise
Gittleman states flatly that "Cavemen didn't eat grains. Cavemen relied on
meats, vegetables, BEANS, fruits, berries, and nuts." (Emphasis mine) (see
Beyond Pritikin_, Revised 1996 edition, p. 25, by Ann Louise Gittleman,
M.S.) and I believe Barry Sears recommends beans as part of a natural diet
in his popular book _THE ZONE_.   Yet this all seems odd; what form of wild
beans exist and grow in such quantities that they could ever be a staple
for anybody, and how are we to imagine most primitive peoples preparing
them? Can they realistically be eaten without cooking?  What cooking
methods would be common if so?  If beans are so natural, why do they cause
gas (which indicates fermentation of indigestible products in the gut)?  If
they aren't, what are we to make of accounts of the !Kung and other
primitive peoples who -do- eat them?

There is also the issue of what are now popularly referred to as the
"essential fatty acids," the Omega-3 and Omega-6 groups of fats which are
now acknowledged to be protective against a host of diseases. And yet the
best sources of the Omega-3 family seem to come almost entirely from fish
or refined vegetable oils,both of which seem like they would be largely
unavailable in any great quantity to most primitive humans.

This also brings up the issue of fish, by which I generically refer to all
freshwater and saltwater fish, including shellfish, eels, etc., as well as
seaweeds.   How natural are these to the human animal?  Some humans
obviously have great access to them, but did we evolve with such ready
access?

I pose more questions than answers, in the hope of stimulating discussion
of the issue among those who know more than I.  I will now be quiet and
hope to hear from others.