On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 15:46:14 EDT, Denise LePage <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

from Todd:
>>Those interested in seeing some vindication of Amadeus' way of thinking
>>might like to read:
>>http://www.chetday.com/reainterview.htm

I'd like to say that I've no connection to chetday or the related
sites and
indeed have seen it the first time from Todds pointer.
However their vision of opportunistic omnivory seems close to my
understanding, how the actual human and humaniod diets in the
paleolithicum
may have been.
I can't understand why they spend so much time building a discussion
of men
vs. women and hunting vs. gathering. Men can gather as well and women
can
kill as well. Especially the smaller animals (like birds,  reptiles,
insects).
And the mighty hunter..... homo habilis spearing a mammouth? Small
australopethines chasing buffalos?

Denise:
>This is the same group that wrote a rebuttal to Loren Cordain's interview
at the same site.

Loren wrote:
<<We have recently compiled ethnographic data from 181 worldwide
societies of hunter-gatherers showing that the mean plant to animal
subsistence ratio in terms of energy was 35% plant and 65% animal.
Thus,
the fossil and ethnographic data suggests that humans evolved on a
diet that
was primarily animal based and consequently low to moderate in
carbohydrate, high in protein and low to moderate in fat.>>

For anatomical modern humans with the advanced weapons of after
40000bc who
conquered the world, ok, possible.

BUT even here:  "35% plant and 65% animal in terms of energy"
Would mean 65% animal calories, thus from meat and fat.
Including the plants hardly helps to provide calories without protein
because the low caloric paleo plants are rather high in protein.
Paleo times had no cookies, no alcohol, no cream and no french fries
(30%
fat) which equal out the protein load of today.

So, as 35% is the limit of protein toxicity, this means (less than)
35%
calories could come from meat and (more than) 30% from fat.
Where are these fatty animals?
It means animal sources with a fat part of over 12%. While muscles
have only
about 2% fat, even pure brain has only 8% fat. Overall game has 3-4%
fat.
You could even guess the latitude north of which animals gain so much
fat.

That's very hard approaching the physiological limit and only possible
in
areas with very fatts animal sources (like seals or fish).
But not in the areas where evolution is assumed to have occured, the
savannahs of africa.
Cro Magnon in glaciation time yes, Inuit yes, australopethines no.
IMO.

I hope the expert Loren Cordaine will include volume computations in
his
future work, so that actual minumum and maximum percentages of
evolution may
replace the word and vision of "much".

>..  I found it humorous and completely devoid of references for their
>theories.

Yes, few references.
But one thing, one claim I'd like to explore further.
That the DNA fingerprints of ahem (feces) had proven the high plant
part.

>I also found it suspect that they claim dietary ketosis causes death.

They are not fond of ketosis.
In diabetics or kindney or liver diseased it might well have been
causing
deaths.
Are you fond of ketosis, then why? what purpose for? Should it help to
loose
weight?
Or do you assume that human predecessors in paleolithic part of
evolution
have been in ketosis (other than on times of starvation)?

I think, it could help moveing out of the vicious sugar circle and
this will
be beneficial.

...

paleolithically

Amadeus S.

"eat as if naked in the savannah with a stick and a stone"