Kevin Tisdel writes:

>Given paleolithic man was lucky to live into their twenties, is it logical
>to >extend that diet to modern man who lives almost four times as long?  I
>do not >question that the Paleolithic diet was appropriate for Paleolithic
>man, but I >am hesitant to extend that diet to modern man without further
>understanding...

Maybe Loren can cite more recent references than I, but an interesting
chart on Paleolithic longevity I have seen had data indicating that late
Paleolithic peoples actually lived into their early to mid-30s on average.
And even more interestingly, they were also perhaps slightly longer-lived
(though not by much) than the agricultural people who followed them and who
ate less meat/fat and higher quantities of carbohydrates.

These longevity figures are for skeletons where the age at death was
determined using standard "paleopathological" techniques, for prehistoric
humans who lived in the Eastern Mediterranean where a lot of research has
been done and the data is available. Main thing to note here about the
short average lifespans compared to modern times is that the major causes
are thought to have been "occupational hazards," i.e., accidents, trauma,
etc., stresses of nomadism, and so forth. [Source: Angel, Lawrence J.
(1984) "Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed
farming in the eastern mediterranean." In: Paleopathology at the Origins of
Agriculture. (proceedings of a conference held in 1982) Orlando: Academic
Press. pp.51-73]

                                                         Median Lifespan (yrs)
                                                            MALE    FEMALE

- 30,000 to 9,000 B.C.                                      35.4     30.0

(late "Paleolithic" times)

- 9,000 to 7,000 B.C.                                       33.5     31.3
("Mesolithic" transition period from Paleolithic
  to some agricultural products)

- 7,000 to 5,000 B.C.                                       33.6     29.8
("Early Neolithic," i.e., agriculture first spreads
widely)

- 5,000 to 3,000 B.C.                                       33.1     29.2
("Late Neolithic," i.e., the transition is mostly complete

- 3,000 to 2,000 B.C. ("Early Bronze" period)               33.6     29.4
- 2,000 to 1,450 B.C. ("Middle People/Bronze Kings")        36.5     31.4
- 1,450 to 1,150 B.C. ("Late Bronze")                       39.6     32.6
- 1,150 to 650 B.C. ("Early Iron")                          39.0     30.9
- 650 to 300 B.C. ("Classic")                               44.1     36.8
- 300 B.C. to 120 A.D. ("Hellenistic")                      41.9     38.0
- 120 to 600 A.D.                                           38.8     34.2
- Medieval Greece                                           37.7     31.1
- Byzantine Constantinople                                  46.2     37.3
- 1400 to 1800 A.D. ("Baroque")                             33.9     28.5
- 1800 to 1920 A.D. ("Romantic")                            40.0     38.4
- "Modern U.S. White" (1982-ish presumably)                 71.0     78.5

I am not entirely sure what to make of these figures, but all other things
being equal (which they may not have been, I don't know) longevity seems to
have decreased slightly during the first several millennia after the
introduction of agricultural foods, then gradually rebounded. If true,
wouldn't this indicate that meat/protein consumption itself could not have
been the factor responsible for decreased longevity? (Looks like it would
to me.) From some of the later time periods involved where civilizations
were known to be on the rise or fall, it appears that social factors have
the biggest impact on longevity, particularly since longevity never rose
above about age 45 for long, often falling below that figure for centuries
at a time, until the 1900s, since which time it has almost doubled.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> Wichita, KS