Todd wrote:

> Anyway, I don't personally doubt that tubers and other root foods
> were important throughout human prehistory, just as I don't doubt
> that hunting and eating animals was important.  I don't see any
> real opposition between the two.

I agree.

The "tuber view" helped me to see the differences between common western
and homo habilis Point of view.
Normal common westeners tend to eat much of "empty calories".
Sugar, part flours, dairy fat, worse industry fat (for frying..).
This makes them deprived of 1.protein and 2.micronutrients.
Meat (even normal muscle meat) comes in as the ideal add on
because it's very high protein and rather low in energy.
With some vitamins - especially riboflavin.
(Of course *then* most of the calories should better be in form of fat,
because carbohydrate calories are unusable without the vitamins to run the
Citric acid Cycle).


For a primate (homo habilis..., coming out of the rainwood) the situation
is different. Changing from fruit to *any* other plant resource - tuber,
nut, stems, greens greatly increases the protein part.
The energy part is lower, compared to a fruit nutrition (like before).
The lean game meats go to a extreme. I has a strong  energy lack and would
 force the body into gluconeogenesis even for muscles and heating.
This is rabbit starvation - wouldn't work so well.
But in ice shielded situations, like in glaciation europa or the arctis
a composition like inuit's was possible - the animals were sufficiently
fat.
This was an ecological niche which *was* exploited.

Back in the savannah,
for us generalists with an abundance of tubers or nuts, game may have been
a welcome addition in terms of micronutrients (but not protein).

Who would believe that of the Western world.
Meat too low in energy, to low in fat, too high in protein.
 Different POV's.

Amadeus


--
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net