In a message dated 4/10/99 6:36:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

> general
>  thrust of the paleolithic nutrition movement, as I see it, has been to
>  consider things
>  in a larger perspective, focussing on the most dramatic changes in the
human
>  diet
>  since the agricultural revolution.  For instance, the most significant of
>  these changes,
>  heavy cereal-grain and dairy consumtion, are impossible without
agriculture,

In regards to the dairy consumption, Todd Moody (If I remember correctly)
added
a post not too long ago about the idea that suckling young mammals would have
been relatively easy to catch in the wild, and as such, were likely targets
for the
hunter.  And that since it's common for hunters to consume the stomach
contents
of their kill first, the likelihood of fermented milk being consumed was
probably
very high.  I don't recall any responses to his post even though what he was
saying
was very significant.  Anyone want to comment on this?? I personally have no
physical problems with milk products.

And I accept the argument that we can never really recreate the same diet that
Paleo-man lived on, we can only try to come close.  But if this is the case,
why are
we calling it Paleo?  Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it a "Natural"
diet or any
other more truthful title?...  since the time frame isn't important, just the
gatherable
with stick theory....I know it's catchy, but it's a deceptive term.

Anna 8-)
"The road to Truth is never ending.  Are you up for the trip??"