...cont...
Same thing applies to intoxification by botulinus (carcasses decay rapidly).
Cats for ex. are insensitive to the toxin.
But 50 million years of fruit eating didn't
let humans build up such a system.
>>>...where should the energy else come from?
>If for the moment you're just talking calories and not availability, why
>would you knock lean game in favor of starch and sugar? I bet there would be more
>calories in a rabbit than in a rabbit-sized volume of non-agriculturalized
>paleo-foliage.
Because of the over-protein. It would cause you nausea to live on meat only
(read about the only-meat-experiment in the 30ies).
And it will endanger your kidneys on the long run.
For protein only a human has enough of about 230 grams meat per day.
For energy he will need about 1500 grams meat! or additional 250 grams of fat.
Per day!
I think this explains, why all h/g populations (inuit for ex.) prefer
fatty parts so much.
On the other hand - if you play around a little with some food composition
programs you'll discover - if you get the calories from plants, then
more than enough of the _needed_ protein will be already in.
So eating the rabbit will normally leave you hungry - not enough fat.
And eating to rabbit-sized volumes of tubers - will bring you
energy, protein, vitamin and fiber.
I think eating animals is more a matter of availability than of quality.
>> . 26 Million years as primate fruitarians
>> .  2 Million years as homo in a changed invironment (savanne) gatherer/hunter?
>> .  0.020 Million years as ice age european hunters/gatherers
>> Makes a pretty long plant food adaption, isn't it?
>Sure, but this doesn't say much about what we're currently best adapted to eat.
>If significant adaptation can occur within 2 million years (and it almost
>certainly can), it doesn't matter if the previous 500 million years were spent
>eating fruit.
Seems as if the short-term food adaptions are very small changes in already
present enzymatic systems. For example every human can digest (mothers)
milk _ideally_. It's made for humans. To digest milk as a adult is only a
shift in time. But the digestion enzymatic systems are already there.
The _real_ food adaption time seems to be really long.
Humans still need Vitamin-C, and die of botulinus toxin.
This is why i think that it's wise to look far back.

>I think it has been successfully argued by anthropologists that wild grains
>don't provide a positive calorie balance for an HG. In other words, they're
>more trouble than they're worth.
What about pavians? I think these live much on grass seeds.
Why should it be more inefficient for humans to gather it?
We have the better functional hands...
I only wanted to say that grains were included since _long_, not that
they were predominating.

>Focusing on vitamins will push you towards veggies and fruits and away from
>tubers and grains, since these latter are so calorically dense that they
>have a poor micronutrient:calorie ratio.
If i run my micronutritient program then i find everything present
plentifully in 600 grams grains. Except vitamin A and C.
Especially Vitamin B1 content is good, humans are _very_ dependant on it.
Our dependance on B1 leads to grains or nuts mushrooms or pigs.
But only grains and nuts look plausible to me on the long run.

>> But my paleolithic picture is different, its a gatherer,
>> living on fruit, bears, seeds, nuts, herbs and tubers,
>> from time to time only hunting a (small!) animal.
>
>By all means, I hope you keep arguing for your picture. Provide evidence
>for why the other pictures are wrong!
I try to collect all that scattered informations in a more
complete way. Hoping for to practical critics and support.


>> That of course alters the protein percentage from the crazy 30 percent
>> to about the 11 percent which also todays h/g people consume.
>
>Why is 30% crazy? Where do you get 11%? Eaton found an average of 33%
>calories from protein among todays HGs.

Because human mothers milk is 6% protein, and a baby should be the human with
the biggest protein need.
11% is a number i saw from Loren Cordain on "paleodiet".

regards

Amadeus