On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> A pound of vegetables would be very easy to get, even in glaciation times
> and areas, just out of the winter. Herbs like sorrel were frequent.

I'll take your word for this.  Leafy foods are the *least* dense,
and so would have to be eaten in the greatest quantities.

> I think tubers and nuts are "the" food items that ideally fill into this
> niche.
> They are frequent in the savannah environment, whole year available,
> durable, storable.

Do you have specific information about which tubers and nuts are
continuously available in this environment?  I do not.

> So, the diet of the last 10000 years did *not* constitute a selection
> pressure.
> I can see the argument, that a growth diet for humanity could as well be a
> less ideal food for the single individuum.

Yes, that is my view.

> For our own species (anatomically modern), a fraction went through the
> selection of glaciation. They contributed some genetic part to mankind, but
> it's unclear how much comes from Europe CroMagnon, and how much from
> southern, non glaciation areas.
> Today we seem pretty similar, all, coloured or not.

I'm not so sure that we are all metabolically similar.  There is
research indicating that the Inuit, for example, make less
delta-5 desaturase enzyme, and lack the sucrase enzyme
altogether.  The fact that Inuit and others recently exposed to
industrial foods become diabetic at a *greater* rate than the
rest of us also indicates a metabolic difference.  The Inuit also
have shorter legs, relative to their height, than Africans, with
Caucasians somewhere in the middle.  This is not a metabolic
difference, of course, but I have sometimes wondered whether it
might be a marker for one, i.e., people with a smaller leg:height
ratio might be more likely to be "lowcarb people".  Just a
speculation.

> > In my view, hominid history from Homo
> >Rudolfensis (2.5 mya) to Homo Sapiens has been a story of
> >increasing use of and adaptation to animal food, as well as
> >tool-based methods of food procurement and processing.
>
> Does just increased use of animal food require adaption anyway?
> Given a significant constant part of plant food?

Arguably yes.  More protein, more fat, exposure to different
pathogens, etc. -- especially if we started as scavengers.

> Maybe if you are lazing around all day, except a little gathering, it
> wouldn't be a very big investment of some miles and hours to obtain some
> kind of animal delicacy you have in your mind.

I doubt this.

> Vegetarianism is a way of restricting ones diet (for whatever reason), and
> it benefits and sometimes leads to a more natural way of eating.

It can do so, if one is determined to do it in a natural way.  As
for it's health impact, we have very little data on natural
vegetarians, since almost all vegetarians use unnatural foods.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]