Lynnet Bannion wrote:

 >Perhaps 32 is supposed to be the "age of reason" though
 > there are billions of counter-examples.

Used as a date, not an age. One might make an argument that the 
paleolithic was the age of reason, while in comparison our neolithic is 
the age of lies.



> Our age of maturity is in the range of 12-18, not 32.  15x7 = 105, a 
> good age.  Perhaps 32 is supposed to be the "age of reason" though
> there are billions of counter-examples.

You are doubtless referring to sex or politics. My reference was to the 
end of growth, traditionally called prime. Marked by the hard layer on 
the ends of some bones; this is why fools claimed that all paleoman died 
at 32 - no more growth.

> 
>> Should be hard core enough for a definition.
> It could be, but it would mean that a paleo diet by your definition
> is entirely unobtainable for us in the 21st century.

I presently live on sightly dried grass-finished ground beef and tallow; 
and no longer feel the urge to eat egg yolks.
Not too hard to find.
 From Neanderthin, things we can find while "naked with a sharp stick" 
have been made difficult to find, but we still do it.


   Don is
> developing a practical definition that can be used by large numbers
> of modern humans to improve their diets and health by extrapolating 
> paleo nutrition into the practical realities of the 21st century.
> 

The definitions that could appeal to large numbers of people must not 
preclude carbohydrates, otherwise the book won't sell, and the author 
makes no money money money - L. Cordain is the best example. Must pander 
to the carb addiction to be popular.

We don't know that Don is that corrupt.

William