On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:38:22 -0600, Ray Audette <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: Amadeus .
>> Thinking historically, it looks that the human animal like any primate
>>and
>> most mammals *is* designed to live heavily on carbohydrates for energy.
>> And this applies to all times after mammals grew bigger than a tiny
mouse.
>> Many millions of years in rainwood. As well as any savannah time.

Ray:
>Even Orangutans in the rain forest don't eat a high carb diet for most of
>every year.  Recent studies ( see International Journal of Primatology
>citation in bibliography on my web site) have shown that they are in
>ketosis
>for at least half of every year when high-carb fruits are not in season.

Ray, I did read that article Ruediger Hoeflechner was pointing us to.
Now I'm wondering if you read it too.

A quick summary:
It describes very thoroughly the diet of orangs throught the year.
Orangutans eat a diet very high in carbohydrates.

Some of the fruit they consume is rich in fat too.
In this way they aquire more quickly calories as from carbs only.

Then there's a season, which is low on fruit, therefore low on food
and the orangs are low on food
(that's the season Gombe chimps eat other monkey's babies).

Then they get thinner, burning the fat they aquired before.
The amount of starving (and fat burning) was measured by taking urin
probes of the orangs.
When it contains ketones, it indicates starving mode.
Ketones come when fat is metabolized, together with protein in absence of
sufficient carbohydrates.
Absence of carbohydrates is the (only) reason why proteins are metabolized
to energy, to gain rain/nerve/blood-cell energy.

I've made a printout of the article for me.
If someone whishes to read it I can dig up the source and upload it to
paleolix. Or maybe you can send it to interested ones.
Or is it available at your site?

There are fatty seeds and fruit common today too -
nuts, sesame, sunflower, flaxseed, poppy ....
All very rich in polyunsaturated essential fatty acids, btw.

Fats are good energy food.
Orangutans like fats (and me too). But they rely very heavily and well on
carbohydrates.

>In
>regions that had a temperate climate during the Pleistocene ( many of which
>are tropical today )this effect would be even more pronounced.  Several
>recent bone isotope studies have confirmed that early Homos ate a
>predominately meat and animal fat diet.

Well, they confirmed that the carbon of their bones was the carbon isotope
which not originates from fruit (anymore) but from grass type plants.

As the study makers assumed that early homos didn't eat grass seeds
(cereals) they assumed that homo ate such animals that relied on grasses.
That would provide the same type of carbon.
That's the story how they came to the idea of (heavy) meat eating hominids.

In a ecosystem, where the carbon doesn't come from fruit, the carbon comes
from different plants. Whatever you ate, plants or any plant eating animals
you get that type of carbon. There is no indication that it came from
animals, just originating from grass type plants (or non-fruit).

Thinking about food availability and the possible (to me probable)
importance of tubers, i wonder, which kind of carbon isotope is in tubers.
And nut giving plants.

Baboons are eating much animals, primarily insects.
And they are eating grains. Grass seeds. Cereals.


>For more on the advantages of a Paleolithic meat based over a plant based
>diet read:
>
>Mark Cohen and G.J. Armelos
>"Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture"
>New York: Academic Press, 1984

Sounds interesting, I'll consider getting it.
I know there are differences in bones from first neolithic and mesolithic
(h/g) populations. From Linearband sites, the mixed in mesolithic bones are
easily distinguished from neolithic ones, because they are thicker.
That doesn't necessyrily mean healthier. They could just have been better
trained (fighting bears and wolfes and such).
Or it may indicate a different genetic variation of the incomeing people -
more gracile.
Or it may indicate less efficient available calcium resources.

>This book describes how to differentiate a Neolithic grave site from a
>Paleolithic site by the evidence of degenerative disease found in people
>who
>eat the diet you advocate.

I advocate? Plant paleolithic nutrition.

At the moment I notice I am missing my spelt. Maybe I was wrong distrusting
my megalithic (oldneolithic) habits for theoretical reasons.

Your book topics on bone pathology.
If it comes to pathology of bones I notice that there are many neolithic
bones available but very few paleolithic ones.
Many h/g remains are actually mesolithic.
In mesolithicum, at least there are shure signs of grain and legume
consumption - i recall a 17000 years old cave in Greece.
That seems not to have had effects on the gathering and hunting population.

A diseased hunter/gatherer person, without a house or permanent shelter
will have died much earlier than a diseased house dweller.
With its bones available in graveyards.

I'm not so shure about the validity of such comparisons.
But interested in archeology.

>  I hope this gets you to eat meat - a billion
>pig's lives are dependent on our eating bacon.

I needn't eat everything that's healthy.
It's reasonable to avoid what's unhealthy - plenty is left.
I think that some amounts of game mear are healthy.
Pigs are likely to be opposite.

>  Please don't make "Babe"
>extinct!

Sorry for Babe.
Are you going to rescue it?

I'm afraid French people are tired to rescue any more BSE cows.

regards,  Amadeus