On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Marilyn Harris wrote:

> But Todd, you have not really addressed the carnivorous properties of the
> rounded jaw and squared teeth of our distant ancestors and ourselves. Don't
> these teeth represent a basically vegetarian ancestory? (Because we do have
> a canine, I say "basically" vegetarian.)

I don't question the premise that our distant ancestors were
near-vegetarian primates.  But the operative word is "distant."
Between then and now, our lineage has undergone a steady series
of adaptations away from vegetarianism.  Yes, we have flat molars
for grinding vegetation, but they have become smaller, suggesting
a lighter workload.  I'm not trying to argue that we have become
strict carnivores.

> I think that we are omnivores but relied more on vegetation rather than
> animals for our daily food (plants can't run away from us). Because we are
> so slow at running, it's doubtful whether we could catch many small animals
> without using tremendous amounts of energy in the process (unless we used
> traps). The same would hold for bringing down larger animals although the
> protein payoff would be much greater. Hunting would not always be successful.

I think it depends upon when and where in our history (and
prehistory) you are considering.  Early on, our meat was probably
carrion, which doesn't run away, but which requires intimidating
the competition, which requires organized group effort.  Small
animals such as lizards and snakes and turtles don't run so fast,
but you have to know where to look for them.  And trapping, as
you noted, is an option.  I used to trap squirrels in my back
yard when I was a kid; I imagine those paleolithic hunters could
manage it too.

Hunting larger animals requires more organized group effort, but
there is reason to believe that hominids and humans were
increasingly successful at it.  Don't forget that gathering would
not always be successful either, especially in arid grasslands.
Jared Diamond points out that the hunter-gatherers of New Guinea
are not particularly great hunters.  In their lush forest
environment, they don't have to be.  Our ancestors had more at
stake.

> Overall, my impression is that we would have been something like 90%
> vegetarians and 10% meat-eaters. My feeling is that the neo-Paleo diet
> espoused on this list somewhat inverts that ratio to something like 70%/30%,
> meat to vegetables. For now, I disagree with that ratio.

I think your ratio is probably correct for the
Australopithecines, but between then and the Upper Paleolithic it
gradually reversed.  Then with the Neolithic it rather quickly
shifted back again.

My personal opinion is that there is no one right way to do this.
As I wrote to Amadeus, I believe the Upper Paleo period was a
population bottleneck that caused a genetic shift in the
direction of low carb tolerance and high meat tolerance, but now
the selection pressure is in the other direction.  So today we
have a very mixed population, with some people doing very well on
the meat-heavy diet and others doing poorly.  On this list we
have sometimes made a distinction between "light paleo" and
"heavy paleo" to reflect this.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]