I've edited the quoted post in order to keep it short, and I've added
some comments inline:

Eliot Martin Glick wrote:

> These are the responses received thus far. Sorry I didn't save the
> writers' tags
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The problem is that nutrient availability and cost in modern times
> are quite different from the cost/availability profiles our ancestors
> faced.  Therefore, it makes sense that the best nutrition for us is
> likely to be a systematically different diet from the one our ancestors
> followed, and - in particular - larger doses of nutrients which they
> found scarce may well be in order.

This is true. No one is suggesting that we eat exactly the way that our
ancestors did day to day (hopefully.) Rather, what we are suggesting is
that we learn from the environment in which we evolved, and adapt our
diet to more closely resemble that of our biological origin.

> These are early days yet, and some would say the knowledge needed
> to improve on paleolithic diets is not there yet.

That's exactly the point. We don't know that much. It is arrogant to
assume that we can design a way of eating that is superior to the one
which we evolved to thrive on.

> It doesn't do to romanticise the diet of our ancestors *too* much.
> Very many of them probably suffered from various kinds of malnutrition
> for much of their lives - out of a mixture of scarcity and ignorance -
> and lived shortened lives as a result.
> I think we should aim to improve on the diet of our ancestors - not
> merely emulate it.

Amen! Living in a paleolithic environment was probably more of a game of
Russian roulette. If you were lucky, your environment provided all of
the things you needed without poisoning you. Of course, it is always
possible that you lived near a stream which was naturally high in toxic
minerals. And, you'd never know it! That is one of the inherent dangers
that modern science mitigates. Our goal should be to understand our
origins and use that as one of the tools to build an better diet.
However, we should not ignore tens of thousands of years of
social/technological development. The two are not mutually exclusive.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> Keep in mind that most
> of your "paleo-persons" only lived to be 25-35 years old.
> We are trying to "fool Mother Nature" into letting us live,
> in health, to 90 or longer.
>
This is a flawed argument that is unfortunately very common. Just a
couple points: Diet is not the only thing (or even the most significant
thing) that effects life expectency. If it weren't for wars and the
automobile our life expectency would be much higher despite all of our
public health issues (Smoking, obesity, pollution, etc.) The ability of
modern science to deal with infant mortality, infection, and serious
injury is vastly more significant than diet in determining our life
expectency (In fact, I'd offer that each of the three is independently
more significant than diet.)

Thanks,
Adam