Ron Hoggan wrote:
> On the plains, the berries would be available from late spring until
> late
> fall, and were certainly eaten by the indigenous people who lived there.
> However, I thought that corn cultivation was limited to the Eastern US
> and
> Mexico. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, I'd appreciate some sources to the
> contrary.

The source was "Guts and Grease," by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig. I was
surprised by that too. Given that Fallon and Enig are not huge fans of
grains (though they do recommend fermented grains), I figured it was pretty
credible.

> As for the Inuit, such foods would only be available, at most, for about
> 10
> to 12 weeks in most places they lived. Thus, their diets would be
> dominated
> by meats throughout the year, and they would exclusively eat meats for
> ~40
> weeks of the year.

Yup, that sounds right. Based on the Stefansson quotes in this forum, one
might think that none of the Inuit ate any plant foods. I was sharing the
fuller picture. As far as I know, no people (I mean extended tribes and
nations, not individuals or villages) on earth has ever entirely subsisted
on animal foods year round for an extended period of time (nor just plant
foods, for that matter, despite some vegetarian and vegan claims to the
contrary).

> > According to Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, the traditional diet
> > of the Blackfoot people of Canada included "pemmican made
> > with berries" and "blood soup, made from a mixture of blood
> > and corn flour cooked in broth, was used as a sacred meal
> > during the nighttime Holy Smoke ceremonies." (Guts and
> > Grease: The Diet of Native Americans, by Sally Fallon and
> > Mary G. Enig, PhD)
> 
> I  would be very surprised to learn that corn was grown as far north as
> Canada prior to the arrival of Europeans. Small amounts might have been
> acquired through trade, but I would expect these to have a negligible
> impact
> on their general eating habits and health.

Excellent guess. You can read about evidence of Indian maize trade in
Alberta, Canada here: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0815-bison.html. Again,
my point wasn't that maize was a staple food of the Plains Indians, but
rather that neither they nor the Inuit ate just meat and organs--and these
were the biggest meat eaters of North America.

> Again, consumption of these foods would be limited to the very short
> summer
> experienced by the Inuit.

I agree. The Inuit ate the highest level of animal foods of anyone on the
planet, and even they ate some plant foods.

> > More importantly, hunter gatherers diets are not limited to
> > those of the Inuit and Plains Indians, and they span a wide
> > range of fat proportions by calories, from 23 percent up to
> > 58 percent, based on data in the Ethnographic Atlas.
> 
> If memory serves, Cordain himself pointed out several of the great
> weaknesses of the Ethnographic Atlas. For instance, he asserted that the
> authors had classed sea food and fish as vegetables rather than meat.

I thought that was due to Lee's erroneous analysis of the Atlas, rather than
the Atlas itself, but in any event it's moot, because I'm going by Cordain,
Miller and Eaton's adjusted data rather than Lee's erroneous analysis or
Eaton's earlier erroneous analysis. I should have noted that, sorry. My
understanding is that the 23-58% figures take into account sea foods. I
believe Cordain et al then removed the extreme outliers to present what they
deemed a more meaningful figure of 28%-47%, but with the various adjustments
it does get confusing, so please correct me if I'm wrong. An online version
of the atlas is here:
http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/uncgi/Ethnoatlas/atlas.vopts, but the raw data
isn't much use.

> I agree that there was considerable variation. The people I was
> referring to
> provide excellent examples of high fat consumption among healthy HG
> groups.

I agree, and my purpose was to show that there were healthy HG groups with
both high-fat and low-fat diets. Based on the variation, the quality of the
fats seem more important than the quantity. Animal foods are certainly
preferred by HG groups, when available, to plant foods (except perhaps for
seasonal sweet treats like fresh berries, honey, maple sap or sweet agave
cactus heart), but most people like variety too and will eat both animal and
plant foods.

> by conventional thinkers such as Marion Nestle, who enjoys considerable
> prestige as an "expert" in the field of nutrition and who continues to
> tout
> the USDA's Healthy Eating Guide. 

Good example. She has called herself the "Socialist Scholar," indicating
possibly a stronger interest in promoting political and economic views than
in staying true to the facts of nutrition. Compared to her, Cordain is
EXTREMELY politically incorrect.

> I have also heard from a number of individuals who were deeply offended
> by
> my attacks on the Canada Food Guide and the USDA's healthy eating guide.

Yup, lots of people's livelihoods depend on the modern foods, unfortunately.
The fight is only going to get more intense.

a> Relatedly, I gave a talk at the Foothills Hospital in Calgary ( ~2001 or
> 2002) and had a highly regarded, registered dietitian sniggering at
> various
> times throughout my presentation. She actually laughed out loud when I
> stated that government sponsored healthy eating guides in the US and
> Canada
> are unscientific.

Yeah, I tell people that they are more likely to get good nutritional advice
from an anthropologist (particularly a paleoanthropologist), paleontologist,
evolutionary biologist or ethnobotanist than a dietitian or physician.
Unfortunately, some people in these fields are trying to prove that Stone
Agers were near-vegetarian socialist feminists, but the nutritional
understanding is still generally better than that of dietitians.

> Cordain could have chosen to be comfortable. However, he chose to
> publish
> controversial ideas. He is a very smart man and I'm sure he realized
> that he
> would incite some reaction. Thus, although I agree with most of his
> ideas, I
> also believe that hearing negative comments is part of the package.

Yes, I just don't think it makes a heck of a lot of sense for the people who
supposedly support Paleolithic and traditional nutrition to harshly attack
the leading thinkers in the field who inspired this thread. Let's leave the
insults to the OPPONENTS of Paleolithic nutrition. They supply more than
enough, as you've unfortunately experienced.

The attacks on you will likely get worse with time. I've noticed that
opponents tend to attack on the following grounds (that you are likely
familiar with by now):

Authority and Celebrity: claims that the AHA, AMA and other authorities have
better credentials, and therefore know more, than you or Cordain, Audette,
Stefansson, etc.; belief that celebrity-approved diet gurus, especially
those who are celebrities themselves, like Ornish, Bob Greene, etc. have
more credibility than relative unknowns
Morality: claims that it's immoral to kill animals because "we no longer
need to;" it's the hidden agenda of many of the opponents of Paleo and
Traditional nutrition and is sometimes based in certain strains of some
religions (such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Seventh-Day-Adventism)
Personal example: suggestions that you are unhealthy, or look less healthy
than they the critics do
Data: claims that the bogus studies of Ornish, T. Colin Campbell, etc. are
the best and that you haven't supported your claims sufficiently
Tactics: they will do things like try to antagonize you into losing your
temper, in order to discredit you