There was some analysis of palaeolithic bones and I belive that neanderthals were shown to have had a diet very high in meat ,

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/787918.stm

 

 mostly land-mammals(not 100% as I'd previously thought) and that palaeolithic humans had a more varied diet involving fish, fowl and meats, with more emphasis on plant-foods than the Neanderthals.

 

From what I understand, evidence of plant-consumption doesn't last as long as evidence from animal remains as bones last a great deal longer, of course, giving a skewed figure of a palaeolithic diet, but the DNA-evidence from bones is pretty solid, IMO.

 

 

 

Geoff







 
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:33:30 -0600
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consum...[Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009] - PubMed Result
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:42:13 -0600, william <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Robert Kesterson wrote:
> >>
> >> IMO, eating *only* meat is not paleo either.
> >>
> > Analysis of paleo bones of man showed they ate meat. Nothing else.
> 
> Whose analysis? Of what bones? One look at our teeth compared to those of other carnivores would seem to indicate that we were not solely carnivorous. And all the hunter-gatherer societies I've ever heard of ate plants if they were available. (Yes, I know about the Inuit -- but like I said, "if they were available").
> 
> > All the posts demanding veggies/fruits/nuts must be from candida 
> > albicans using the unwitting hosts.
> 
> Could be. You know what they say ... "Resistance is futile."
> 
> -- 
> Robert Kesterson
> [log in to unmask]

_________________________________________________________________
Twice the fun—Share photos while you chat with Windows Live Messenger. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/windowslive/products/messenger.aspx