This following article reinforce what i was saying earlier that eating paleo
require more than quitting grains and dairies and confirme my thought that
paleo peoples and hunter-gatherers in general, might  owe their health to
the way they relate to their food more than to  WHAT they ate .
I have observed my self that fruit bushes or trees produce more when i
harvest them than when i don't.

jean-claude

->Touching Effects: Visiting Plants In The Field May Alter Their Future
>ScienceDaily           Tuesday, February 6, 2001
>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010205075416.htm
>
>In the 1970s, people were fascinated by the thought that talking to
>houseplants could increase their growth. Now, a team of ecologists
>has discovered that touching plants in the field may alter the chance
>that insects will feed upon the plants' leaves. Their discoveries
>appear in a  study published in the February issue of Ecology (volume
>82 number 2). More than a novelty, this study may change the way
>future ecological studies are conducted.
>
>James Cahill (now at the University of Alberta, formerly at the
>University of Delaware) together with Jeff Castelli and Brenda Casper
>(University of Pennsylvania) were studying plants in an abandoned
>hayfield and along a forest floor when they noticed that plants they
>had marked for study were experiencing extremely high rates of attack
>by insects. The scientists hypothesized that they, the human
>visitors, were somehow causing this to  occur.
>
>To test their theory, the ecologists marked 605 plants within 12
>plots in an abandoned hayfield in Pennsylvania's Brandywine Valley.
>Six plots were visited weekly, while the remaining six plots were
>left unvisited as controls. When plants were visited, they were
>stroked once from base to tip, with care taken not to damage the
>plant body. This handling was designed to mimic what occurs when
>scientists typically take repeated measurements of plants in field
>studies.
>
>One of the species studied, Indianhemp (Apocynum cannabinum) was
>negatively affected by visitation, experiencing high rates of leaf
>area loss due to  insects. A second species, Sulphur Cinquefoil
>(Potentilla recta), seemed to benefit, as the plants experienced less
>leaf area loss when visited than  when unvisited. The third species,
>commonly known as Butter and Eggs (Linaria vulgaris), also tended to
>fare better when visited. Fewer plants of this species died when
>visited than did their unvisited control counterparts.
>
>The remaining species in the study, Carolina Horsenettle (Solanum
>carolinense), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), and Kentucky
>Bluegrass (Poa pratensis), were not affected either positively or
>negatively by visitation.
>
>"The long-standing assumption that field researchers are benign
>observers is fundamentally flawed," says Cahill. "The very act of
>conducting an experiment can alter experimental results, and the
>potential effects that researchers may have when visiting plants must
>be addressed in future field studies."
>
>The researchers hypothesize that touch-activated plant responses may
>be the cause of some of the effects experienced by the plants in the
>study. These responses, which have long been documented by
>ecologists, can include many physical and chemical reactions to
>handling. For instance, touching a plant may result in changes to its
>structure, architecture and the toughness of its leaves. It may also
>result in a release of volatile insect-attracting chemicals from the
>plants themselves or from neighboring vegetation.
>
>The scientists also note that when nearby plants were trampled, the
>plants which were being studied received more light, which could
>prove beneficial to plants. Competition for light can reduce the
>growth of many plant species and increased amounts of light can make
>some plants more vigorous. Trampling the neighboring vegetation
>could, however, also make the plants in question more visible to
>plant-eating insects. The ecologists were unable to find  any clear
>pattern of traits which would make an individual species more or less
>vulnerable after visitation. They suggest that further studies should
>examine whether the effects of visitation are common in variety of
>plant  communities, and also whether the observed effects were due to
>the act of touching or merely approaching plants. They also suggest
>additional investigations into how field visitations affect insect
>community structures.
>
>"Although questions remain about visitation effects," Cahill says,
>"we believe it is clear that field biologists working with plants can
>no longer assume that their activities in the field do not alter the
>biology of study organisms."
>
>---
>
>
>
>--
>Terry J. Klokeid, Ph.D.
>Amblewood Organic Farm
>126 Amblewood Drive, Fulford Harbour
>Salt Spring Island BC V8K 1X2
>[log in to unmask]
>messages /fax (250) 653-4099
>voice (250) 653-4069
>
>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used
>when we created them." --Albert Einstein