On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:30:17 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>>  Herbs like sorrel were frequent.
>
>I'll take your word for this.  Leafy foods are the *least* dense,
>and so would have to be eaten in the greatest quantities.

Yes, as the sole food it looks like impossible to me (several kg).
But a pound of sorrel a day i would count as a most important contribution
to the ice age (glaciation) supply of vitamin c , calcium , folate ...

>Do you have specific information about which tubers and nuts are
>continuously available in this environment?  I do not.

My wife once had a public garden project in Karthum (Sudan) and i got to
know a handful of different trees with various fruit, i never knew before.
But they are popular over there.

Information about the kinds of nuts available in such areas (also paleo
view) is in http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_nuts.htm .
Some good tuber information is also there, in
http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_vegetables.htm
( look for "In a woodland and riverine savannah environment" )
A Dr. Wrangham wrote interesting about tubers (and fire, remember "Lucy at
the fireplace..."). Don Wiss referenced something from him, at:
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind0101&L=paleofood&P=32594

Generally Nuts are seasonal, but various nuts in varying seasons.
Tubers normally are permanent over the year.

>I'm not so sure that we are all metabolically similar.  There is
>research indicating that the Inuit, for example, make less
>delta-5 desaturase enzyme, and lack the sucrase enzyme
>altogether.

Yes and they can cope with only 13.5 mg vitamin C per day.
Of course there are differences, I'd see as the variability of diets
the human genome can cope with, in general.
Inuit probably some more extreme cases.

>> Does just increased use of animal food require adaption anyway?
>> Given a significant constant part of plant food?
>
>Arguably yes.  More protein, more fat, exposure to different
>pathogens, etc. -- especially if we started as scavengers.

Hm humans die if micrograms of botulinus, cats survive.
Greatest exposure to pathogens came from the agricultural animal husbandry
(remember Jared Diamond). Deseases so deadly that millions of non-husbrandry
people (native americans) died of.
More protein ok.
More fat? I don't think so, because fat is more rare in antelopes, as far as
i know, as in nuts.

>It can do so, if one is determined to do it in a natural way.  As
>for it's health impact, we have very little data on natural
>vegetarians, since almost all vegetarians use unnatural foods.

Vegetarians have a greater pressure to eat whole, unmodified things as
normal (SAD) eaters have. Because with the modification mostly the protein
would go away. Veg.s normally rely on medium density seeds, cereal seeds.
Density 600 g/day as opposed to 350 (g/day) from nuts and 2000 for tubers
and 4000 for vegetables and 8000 for fruit (about 2000 for lean meat, 500
for meat/fat 50% each).

SAD non-vegetarians IMO life in the danger to eat the missing energy
(calories) from very bad sources (sugar, white flour, alcohol, bad fat).
Because they don't have the *need* to eat whole plants for the protein.
Of course vegetarians can eat other protein concentrates to just replace
meat, like cheese, quark, tofu etc.
Then they are ready for the junk calories too.

Just an observation.

Amadeus S.