PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dedy Rundle <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:17:42 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
An idea...

Any chance we can agree that when we use the term 'Paleo Diet' here on this 
list we refer to WOE during the time period between 2.5 million years ago up 
until the introduction of agriculture and the end of the Pleistocene around 
10 000 BC?

There's a seemingly sensible overview on Wikipedia regarding 'Paleolithic' 
and relevant to this list in particular, the section about 'Diet and 
nutrition'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic


Dedy



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Kesterson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 02 July 2009 16:45
Subject: Re: [PALEOFOOD] Was: Zero Carb, Now Fructose


> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:21:27 -0500, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> As to the "fruit in winter" issue, remember that modern humans first
>>> appeared in Africa, in tropical climates.  Winter wasn't the issue it is
>>> in temperate climates, and there was fruit (and eggs and insects) all
>>> year.
>>
>> No, this isn't right.  The generally accepted view is that during a cycle
>> of global cooling, the tropical forests shrank, and some apes or apelike
>> hominids living near the fringe of the forest were forced out into the
>> grasslands, and had to make a living there.  *They*, not the ones who
>> stayed in the forests, became our ancestors.
>
> Interesting.  (I knew we came from the forest, but didn't realize we were 
> forced out.)  Before being forced out, though, my comment still seems 
> valid.  (Of course I guess it just depends how far back you want to go. 
> You could argue most anything if you go back far enough.)
>
>> In our world, where fruit and its
>> metabolic cognates (sugary foods and refined carbs) are constantly
>> available in overwhelming abundance and at low cost, it doesn't work so
>> well.
>
> By "low cost", I presume you mean in the sense of the energy we must 
> expend to get it?  If we had to burn 90 calories climbing a tree to get a 
> 100 calorie apple (or snickers bar or whatever), it might be different. 
> (I have no idea how many calories it takes to climb a tree, it's just an 
> example.)
>
> --
>   Robert Kesterson
>   [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2