On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:29:12 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> The trouble is, as you've
>pointed out, to get enough energy from *paleo* carbohydrate
>sources one has to consume immense quantities of vegetation.
>Even to get Lutz's 72g you would have to eat about a pound of
>low-density vegetables (see "frozen mixed vegetables" at USDA).

Yes, ordinary paleo plants (vegetables) require very big volume,
something like 4-8 kg per day (as the only). That's the lifestyle of
gorillas
which eat even more even lower density vegetation - leaves.
That's not compatible with "fast food" lifestyle. Even my 1kg salad everyday
takes about 1/2 hour to eat.
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.

>As you have argued, tubers are a better energy source, but I am
>not sure how continuously available they would have been.

I think we can assume a shift towards a little denser diet for humans as a
followup of the
bigger caloric needs of the bigger brain.
The human colon is a little smaller than that of other primates and
therefore
less well capable for the caloric exploitation of cellulose.
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.
They also respond positively to a rudimentary kind of food resource
maintenance.
(just leave some tubers to grow till next year,
or carry around and therefore propagating a few nut seeds).

>> .. the last 6-10000 years should be most deciding.
>
>No, here I have to disagree.  I do think that the more recent
>adaptations are the ones that matter, but the key is adaptation,
>not just time.  What forces adaptation is increased selection
>pressure, ...
> This doesn't apply to the last 10,000 years
>of agriculture because this has been a period of population
>*growth*, fueled by cheap calories.  Even if the death rate
>increased, the birth rate clearly increased even more.

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.
If you look at Lutz's and others' charts you see that the transition was
taken with
relative low rate of disease, *though* food shortages must have been
encountered, in growth.
What really boosted disease was the refinement era.

>In contrast, during glacial maxima, those who did poorly on a
>lowcarb diet perished.  The survivors were those who did well.

I agree for all human traits which had to survive through glaciated winters
- like in Europe.
There were at least 2 traits wich survived this way, but died off later in
competition with different, later invading people. Erectines and
Neanderthals experienced this.
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.

In non-glaciated areas (like africa, "near" east) I can't see low carb
phases, except in times of starvation.

> I think this is why lowcarb diets help so many people, even though
>most other primates do not have lowcarb natural diets.

I tend to assume it's more because lowcarb works against disturbed glucose
metabolism, because this is so frequent in modern times.

> 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?

>> I don't think it was ever difficult to be vegetarian, i think people
didn't
>> try to avoid it, just did seldom care about.
>
>I disagree.  Again, I'm thinking of Weston Price's finding that
>populations that seemingly could have been vegetarian went to
>great lengths to obtain animal foods.

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.

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

Amadeus S.