Given that only 1% of tubers would have been edible raw, that, at the very least, does indicate a certain difficulty in obtaining the right tubers etc. Plus, of course, widely  different climates would have far smaller densities of tubers per square km.(especially, during an Ice-Age). As far as foraging for edible plant-food is concerned, I've done my fair share re collecting wild mushrooms in (untouched) woodland here in Europe, and know, from experience, that most such wild mushrooms take ages to find in even small quantities, plus I would always have to refer to various nature-based encyclopaedias  so as to ensure I didn't pick up a poisonous (or inedible) mushroom - and the proportion of edible mushrooms raw is greater than that of raw, edible tubers. Therefore, I just don't see Palaeo man as going out of his way to exhaustively search for just the right edible  tubers before cooking was invented, unless there were famine-conditions or a poor climate/lack of animal-food in the area around. I just don't buy the notion that "if ithe food is there, it would have been eaten in more than trace amounts". Plus, of course, there's the question of taste:- raw tubers are considered very unappetitising).
 
Re problems with tubers rather than absence of meats:- First of all, there is already increasing evidence of the dangers of eating starchy foods, in general, let alone tubers(starchy foods have a high glycaemic index, leading to higher levels of insulin, thus resulting in higher rate of obesity, diabetes etc. etc.). Secondly, tubers have antinutrients within them that block useful nutrients from being taken up by the body, thus ensuring a less than healthy diet, so that they become more and more of a problem as the intake of tubers increases. Lastly and leastly, there's the issue of aflatoxin poisoning:-
 
http://www.farmradio.org/english/radio-scripts/79-3script_en.asp
 
 
Re Mesolithic:- There seems to be some confusion re dates of the Mesolithic. In Wikipedia and other sources, differing dates are given(11,000 for Europe), but 18,000-20,000 for other regions such as the Levant etc. from what I've read, domestication of animals had already started by c.15,000 years ago. As regards the Palaeolithic age, if it was solely an artificial term used re increased tool-use, then it's not really an accurate term to describe something entirely different and non-related such as diet. As far as cooking is concerned, it's only been around for a tiny part of our hominid history, and no other species has ever  cooked its own food.
 
 
Re technology:- Sorry, but most books and Palaeo authorities confirm that fire was the first real technological innovation(or perhaps "scientific innovation" would be a better term), partly as it's the one thing that sets us apart from the animals, but also because of the fundamental(positive and negative) ways it changed the lives of Mankind.  Long, long after the invention of fire, came such  innovations as the bow and arrow, traps  etc. I suppose one can argue loosely in terms of semantics, and state that animals also use technology, but that doesn't change the fact that fire radically altered food in a way that no tools did before the invention of fire.
 
 
Before the invention of fire, the extent of dependence on tools for food was minimal, just a couple of flints( not much more complex than modern chimpanzees who are known to use sharpened spears:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6387611.stm
 
 
 
Also, since, pre-fire, food like meats/berries etc. were eaten raw, largely without tools (except for simple stones/flints for bashing skulls and bones for the brain and marrow), there was no need, in the first place, to depend on technology for food, they just had to use their hands. Considering that other animals happily eat all sorts of raw foods without needing tools or technology, this should be obvious! 
 
Re fire/non-palaeo:- I didn't state that fire was "non-Palaeo", only that it covered such a tiny portion of the Palaeolithic era, that it was absurd to focus on that as the "main" diet of the Palaeolithic.
 
Re proportions of tubers:- All I'm worried about  is the notion/view  that " if  a particular tribe of cavemen (in an animal-deficient but plant-rich area etc.), eats a diet of, say, 20% tubers, then that it is healthy to eat a diet of 20% tubers, simply because the former lived in Palaeo times".
 
 The above view would be clearly a case of logic based on a false premise, as the relevant tribe might be forced to eat tubers  for all sorts of reason whether in terms of famine etc. Indeed, a view similiar to this is often stated by advocates of Weston-Price who routinely make dubious claims re the supposed health of certain more modern hunter-gatherer tribes which eat lots of  grains and dairy(and tubers).
 
Geoff
 
 
 
http://rawpaleoforum.com/index.php http://www.rawpaleo.com/ http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/rawpaleodiet/ > Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:29:17 -0400> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Stone-age diet may lower risk of heart disease> To: [log in to unmask]> > Geoffrey Purcell wrote:> > Re plant-foods:- Arguably, the only major expansion in plant-foods in the diet > > was when the Neolithic era came around, since grains, tubers and legumes > > were then consumed in large quantities. And, it's unquestionable that tubers > > would have been a rarity before 250,000 years ago, given that many/most > > have toxic substances in them such as cassava with its cyanide-content, and > > even after that period, it would have presumably taken many generations to > > work out which foods were only edible cooked but inedible raw. As for when > > tubers were eaten in sizeable quantities, the only definite proof thereof is from > > the start of the Neolithic era - as regards the period between 250,000 years > > ago to 10,000 years ago, we will just have to agree to disagree.> > > > The connection between the Neolithic and grains and legumes is clear. > The Neolithic is defined by the transition to agriculture, and cereal > grains and certain legumes were the earliest known crops. But the > connection between the Neolithic and tubers is far less clear, since > these were not staples of early agriculture. You say that it's > "unquestionable" that tubers would have been a rarity before 250,000 > years ago, but your reason for this claim leaves it highly questionable. > You say that it would have taken many generations to figure out which > tubers were only edible cooked. But that question only became > interesting after the advent of cooking. Prior to cooking, hominids > would have simply been interested in knowing which tubers were edible > raw--and they had plenty of time to work that out, *long* before cooking > became an option.> > Consider this statement: "Today, there are 40,000 kilograms of tubers > per square kilometer in Tanzania's savanna woodlands, for example." > (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html). Suppose, for the > sake of argument, that only 1% of them are edible raw. That's still > nearly a half ton of edible, energy-dense food per square kilometer, > *prior* to cooking. I think the burden of argument is on anyone who > supposes that paleolithic people would have chosen to ignore this food.> > Re tubers/malnutrition:- I don't think that the famines resulting from tuber-> > consumption can be merely blamed on the not eating of meats. I mean, people > > have already (wrongly, IMO) tried to use the same explanation re not eating > > enough meats for the Neolithic era, but when one looks more closely at the > > data, one finds that eating Neolithic foods like grains and dairy lead to all sorts > > of specific problems(eg:- coeliac disease) which are not related to the not > > eating of meats but the eating of those particular Neolithic foods.> > > Well, you were talking about famines and malnutrition, not specific > medical reactions to foods. Do you have data that indicate that the > mere consumption of tubers, in general, led to specific medical > problems, apart from the absence of meats in those impoverished areas > where meats became scarce?> > > Re "Palaeo"/cooking etc.:- The way I see it, the term "palaeolithic epoch" is > > rather arbitrary and artificial, given that there are so many different variations > > in it(eg:- the initial high raw vegan ideas, raw palaeolithic diet, and , lastly, > > cooked-palaeolithic diet). Plus, it's absurd that a diet(ie "cooked, palaeolithic) > > can be held as the "main" diet of the Palaeolithic, when this only covers a > > mere 10% of the entire Palaeolithic period(cooking was definitely NOT invented > > in the middle of the Palaeolithic(!) as cooking was invented only 250,000 years > > ago, with the Palaeolithic era starting c.2.5 or 2.6 million years ago, and > > ending in the Mesolithic(roughly 20,000 years ago).> > > The term "paleolithic" is not especially vague. It refers to the period > that begins with the first stone tool-using hominids, about 2.5 mya, and > ends with the Neolithic, about 10,000 ya. The transition to agriculture > comes at the end of the Mesolithic, roughly 11,000 ya. The rest of the > Mesolithic is characterized by fancier flint tools and dwellings and > even boats, but is still decidedly pre-agricultural.> > It may be absurd to assert that a diet that is cooked is the "main" > paleolithic diet, but since I didn't assert that, I don't care whether > it's absurd or not. Cooking nevertheless *is* a paleolithic practice > that has existed longer than there have been anatomically modern homo > sapiens.> > > Re technology:- People have been trying for ages to find out the one unique > > innate quality or cultural behaviour that separates humans from all other > > animals, and have failed time and again, as it was found that things like > > laughter and tool-use etc.> Indeed, these essentialist musings are of little use. But this has no > relevance to what I said, which is that the *extent* of dependence upon > technology for food is a distinctive characteristic of the entire > hominid-human lineage, and I stand by that. From the beginning of the > Paleolithic to the present day, the dependence upon technology has only > increased. This is not contradicted by the fact that other species use > tools to some extent. The point is: There is no such thing as a > pre-technological paleolithic diet. It never existed.> > > Another obvious point to make is that using flints and the like doesn't radically > > alter the nature of the food in the way that cooking does. Such tools as flints > > were used to gain better access to a food(eg:- by breaking open the skull to > > get at the brain etc.), much like chimpanzees use sticks to flush out termites > > from termite-mounds etc., they were not used to "process" the meats in the > > extreme way that cooking does. So, since tool-use is also prevalent in wild > > animals, it seems clear that "technology" only started when humans first > > invented fire, which is something no other animal has ever managed to do.> > > > Your argument appears to be that since other animals use tools, but only > humans use fire, tools are not technology but fire is. This argument > depends upon the unstated premise that only uniquely human practices > count as technology. That premise is left unstated for the good reason > that when it is stated it's clear that there's no reason to accept it. > Moreover, the third sentence, the conclusion, doesn't begin to follow > from the first two. Does fire change food? Yes. Does that fact make > it non-paleo? No.> > Suppose savanna hunter-gatherers got, say, 10% of their energy from > tubers, 10% from fruits and berries at various times, and another 10% > from other low-density plant foods, such as edible leaves, buds, shoots, > etc. The other 70% was from animal foods. This would be a far cry from > a "tuber based" or even "plant based" diet, but also far from a diet in > which plant foods, including tubers, play no meaningful part.> > Todd Moody> [log in to unmask]> 
_________________________________________________________________

All new Live Search at Live.com

http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000006ukm/direct/01/